The relation between family factors and children’s vocabulary knowledge: a comparative study of rural and urban preschoolers in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although family factors are considered important for children's language acquisition, the evidence comes primarily from affluent societies. Thus, this study aimed to examine the relations between family factors (family's socioeconomic status [SES], home literacy activities, access to print resources, and parental beliefs) and children's vocabulary knowledge in both urban and rural settings in China. Data from 366 children (urban group: 109, 4.85 years; rural group: 257, 4.89 years) were collected. Results showed that whereas family's SES significantly predicted access to print resources and children's vocabulary knowledge in the rural group, parental beliefs directly predicted children's vocabulary knowledge in the urban group. Multigroup analysis showed that the associations of family's SES and access to print resources with children's vocabulary knowledge were stronger in the rural group than in the urban group. Our findings highlight the importance of considering contextual settings when conceptualising the role of family factors in children's language acquisition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".