Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on concerted cultivation describes how higher-class parents reproduce their social class standing in their children by engaging in 'cultivating' parenting practices. I use Latent Class Analysis and multinomial logistic regression applied to survey data from Canada to inductively uncover distinct approaches to parenting and then determine whether they are reflective of parental social class. The uninvolved parenting approach is characterized by the absence of any of the cultivating attitudes or practices included in the study. The low aspirations parenting approach includes low expectations for the children but positive parent-child interactions and ensuring that the children successfully complete their homework. The demanding parenting approach involves high aspirations for the children, saving for the children's postsecondary education and enrolling the children in extracurricular activities but spending little time involving themselves in their children's homework or talking with their children about school-related issues. The involved parenting approach encompasses nearly all of the cultivating attitudes and practices included in the study. The uninvolved approach tends to be adopted by lower-class families, the demanding and involved approaches tend to be adopted by higher-class families and the low aspirations approach is situated between these positions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".