MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410233433 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs161202522344

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL VALUES OF MOTHERS OF CHILDREN AGED 60 TO 72 MONTHS AND THE PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR OF THEIR CHILDREN

2025· article· en· W4410233433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şeyma Türen, Meral Taner Derman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorDevelopmental psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the relationship between the individual values of mothers of children aged 60 to 72 months and the children’s prosocial behavior. The research was implemented using the relational screening model, a quantitative research method. The study group, which was determined by a simple non-selective sampling method, included 300 children aged 60 to 72 months attending preschool in the Istanbul province of Türkiye in the 2020–2021 academic year, and their mothers. The data collection tools used were the Individual Values Inventory, the Preschool Positive Social Behavior Scale, and a demographic information form. Scores for the mothers in the study group were highest for the values of sharing and respect, and lowest for trust and forgiveness; their children received above-average scores in their prosocial behavior. In addition, there was no statistically significant relationship between the individual values of the mothers and the prosocial behaviors of their children. These findings are discussed and suggestions are made for new research, along with practical ideas for teachers and families.

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.365
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207