Effects of Parental Encouragement on Their Child’s Academic Performance and Poverty Alleviation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental encouragement improves a child’s academic performance, which reflects the individual accumulation of human capital and can prevent the child from becoming poor in the future. We provide a model to clarify the mechanism by which parental encouragement influences the child’s efforts by considering parental time preference, wages, and background. We find that parents who have a child with low innate ability, high wages, strong time preference, and were given little encouragement from their parents in the past hesitate to encourage their child and tend to give them assistance for survival. We also imply that the influence of parental encouragement to children’s academic performance is strong in early grades rather than in late grades. Moreover, we indicate that educational institutes such as schools and local governments can reduce parents’ time preference and provide information about opportunities that stimulate children's efforts at schools. These actions urge the parents who hesitated to encourage their children to begin to encourage them. Furthermore, these actions increase the effectiveness of parental encouragement and realize the child's efforts at school, which results in improving their wages in the labor market in the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".