PARENTING MEDIATION AND MONITORING: HOW FAMILY STRUCTURE SHAPES RESPONSES TO CHILDREN’S ONLINE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children from single-parent families may face greater challenges related to both internalized and externalized difficulties compared to those raised in two-parent households. The digital age adds further risks, with the need to protect children from online threats such as sexual harassment. This study examines parental mediation and response strategies in the context of child online sexual harassment, focusing on differences between single-parent and two-parent families. A nationally representative quantitative survey was conducted within the deSHAME2 project in Croatia, which involved 1,667 parents of school-age children. Using structured questionnaires and validated measurement scales, the study explored how parents engage in internet safety discussions with their children, their level of concern about online harassment, and the specific actions they take when faced with such incidents. Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods, including the Mann-Whitney test and Spearman’s rank correlation. Findings reveal that while single-parent and two-parent households adopt largely similar parental mediation strategies and responses to online risks, parents in two-parent families were more likely to engage in discussions with their children when a problem was identified. These results suggest that parenting behaviors such as communication, monitoring, and readiness to act may play a more significant role in child online protection than family structure alone. By highlighting these patterns, the study emphasizes the importance of systematic education and support programs for all parents. Fostering proactive parental involvement in and open communication about online safety remain essential steps in reducing children’s exposure to digital risks, regardless of family composition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".