Love it or hate it: Mothers’ Experience with Mathematics Homework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite efforts to increase gender equity in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, the perception of mathematics as a masculine domain persists, creating barriers for girls and women. This study explores how mothers experience mathematics homework with their children, who are in the middle to upper primary years of schooling (ages 8–11). Through surveys and semi-structured interviews, we investigate the ways in which mothers engage with and support their children’s mathematics schooling and homework. The findings reveal that mothers’ own experiences with mathematics and their perceived mathematical abilities significantly influence how they engage with their children’s mathematics homework. Mothers employ various strategies and draw upon diverse resources to support their children’s learning, including digital tools, school-provided initiatives, and personal networks. The findings raise important questions about the equity and sustainability of parental engagement with mathematics homework and the need for schools to consider the diverse experiences and resources of families when designing homework policies and practices.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it