The discussion on the mediating and moderating effects of parenting style and academic achievement in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has demonstrated that parents can greatly influence students' drive to learn and confidence in their abilities to achieve academic goals, both of which have significant impact on their academic achievement. Thus, this paper will also examine how different parenting styles may affect students' academic motivation and goal orientations, students' dispositions towards developing their ability in school, which can then influence their academic achievements. This topic is worthy of investigation as research has shown that certain parenting styles can be employed to improve academic achievement. For instance, literature has demonstrated that the guidance and granting of freedom from authoritative parenting promotes intrinsic motivation, which positively correlations with higher academic achievement. Meanwhile, parents' demandingness and responsiveness to their children can also impact their academic goals, which can greatly influence their performances at school. With increased focus and attention on education and parenting, this essay aims to explore the question, "How is the relationship between parenting styles and academic achievement mediated by students' motivation and goal orientations in China?". Through the examination of various studies, this paper concludes that the authoritarian parenting styles, mediated by factors like motivation and goal orientations , is most beneficial to the academic achievement of Chinese students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".