The intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs and the impact of the Supporting Father Involvement Program on parenting beliefs in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs and the impact of the Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) program on parenting beliefs of program participants. In phone interviews, 49 participants from Western Canada were asked about parenting beliefs they hold most dear from their own growing up experience, how these beliefs influence their parenting, and if SFI strengthened or changed their beliefs. All participants had previously participated in SFI, an intervention designed to strengthen parenting, co-parenting, and couple relationships. Results from this study found the intergenerational parenting beliefs of participants to be putting the family first, discipline, unconditional love and support, and a love for learning. Participants described how their parenting beliefs helped created a closer bond within the family. SFI impacted parenting beliefs by providing a community forum to test pre-existing beliefs, helping to put values into practice, increasing sensitive parenting among parents, and strengthening beliefs; a few participants felt the program had no impact on their beliefs. This research demonstrates the prevalence of inter-generationally transmitted parenting beliefs and the specific values and beliefs of families living in Western Canada. Results indicated that through community and program support, families have the potential to increase their positive parenting behavior and strengthen pre-existing beliefs, such as father involvement, that specifically relate to the program's focus and goals.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".