Evocative effects of children's education‐associated genetics on maternal parenting: results from the Norwegian mother, father and child cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It has long been hypothesized that increasing heritability with age of cognitive and educational performance is partly attributable to evocative gene–environment correlation. However, this hypothesis has not been widely tested. Methods We addressed this gap by examining whether children's education polygenic scores ( PGS edu ) were associated with maternal self‐reported positive and literacy‐focused parenting when children were 5 years old, and if evoked parenting differences mediated genetic effects on children's educational outcomes (mother‐reported at 6–8 years of age), while controlling for parental PGS edu . We also investigated whether maternal reports of children's language at 5 years old were associated with parenting and mediated genetic effects on educational performance. These questions were addressed in a sample of 83,627 parent‐offspring trios from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study, a longitudinal population‐based pregnancy cohort. Results Children's PGS edu were significantly associated with maternal literacy‐focused (β = .03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05], p = .021) but not positive parenting (β = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.05], p = .410), and literacy‐focused parenting significantly mediated the effects of children's PGS edu on their educational performance (β = 0.01, 95% CI [1 × 10 −3 , 0.01], p = .023). Children's language was associated with maternal parenting and mediated the effects of children's PGS edu on their educational performance (β = 0.01, 95% CI [3 × 10 −3 , 0.02], p = .002). Conclusions These findings support our hypotheses and suggest early language and parenting may be mechanisms implicated in the pathways from children's genetics to their educational outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".