MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404723835 · doi:10.1080/10409289.2024.2432232

Social Ecological Factors Influencing Children's School Readiness in Low-Income South African Communities

2024· article· en· W4404723835 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine E. Draper, Caylee J. Cook, Steven J. Howard, Hleliwe Makaula, Rebecca Merkley, Mbulelo Mshudulu, Nosibusiso Tshetu, Gaia Scerif

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Education and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersBritish Academy
KeywordsPsychologyLow incomeSocial ecological modelEcological psychologyEconomic growthDevelopmental psychologySocioeconomicsEcologySociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Findings: School readiness is highly salient in South Africa (SA), a country with extreme and persistent inequities that undermine early childhood development. The aim of this short-term longitudinal study was to identify social ecological factors associated with school readiness in young children from low-income settings in Cape Town, SA. Participants were 152 3–5-year-old children (55% female, not attending early childhood care and education (ECCE) settings at recruitment) and their primary adult caregiver from low-income settings. Linear regressions found that, compared to home- and community-level factors, child-level factors were the strongest predictors of scores on the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA, total and subscale scores for literacy, numeracy, social emotional, and motor). At the child level, attending ECCE services was the strongest predictor, followed by early numeracy and age. Household socioeconomic status positively predicted social emotional scores; dysfunction in the parent–child relationship negatively predicted literacy and total school readiness scores. Practice or Policy: These findings contribute to a contextually relevant understanding of school readiness in low-income SA settings. Greater understanding can lead to more effective mitigation of risks and amplification of protective factors within policy and practice so that early childhood development can be optimized in these settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Education and DevelopmentSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207