Infant Temperament and Coparenting Support as Antecedents of French-Canadian Fathers’ Autonomy Support During Toddlerhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNOPSISObjective. Although a growing body of evidence suggests that paternal autonomy support (AS) promotes optimal child development in multiple spheres, antecedents of paternal AS have seldom been explored. The present longitudinal study used a family systems perspective to gain deeper insights into child and maternal antecedents of observed paternal AS versus controlling practices during toddlerhood. Design. Using a sample of 169 French-Canadian fathers (Mage = 33.70 years old, SD = 4.74) and mothers (M = 31.46 years, SD = 4.11) with an infant (52% boys, 48% girls), structural equation modeling was conducted to investigate the predictive role of infant temperament and maternal coparenting support and gate closing attitudes on observed paternal AS and control, controlling for paternal psychological symptoms. At 6 months post-partum, fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of infant temperament (extraversion/surgency, effortful control, and negative affectivity), maternal coparenting support and gate closing attitudes, and paternal psychological symptoms were assessed using questionnaires. At 12 months, both paternal AS and control were rated using a well-validated coding scheme, applied to a father-toddler problem-solving sequence filmed at home. Results. Findings revealed that infant extraversion/surgency as perceived by fathers at 6 months was prospectively associated with less paternal AS and more paternal control at 12 months. In contrast, maternal coparenting support at 6 months was associated with more paternal AS and less paternal control at 12 months. Conclusions. Policies and intervention programs that want to promote paternal AS should consider fathers’ perceptions of coparenting support and child temperament.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".