Parenting beliefs and behaviors: Initial findings from the International Consortium for the Study of Social and Emotional Development (ICSSED)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter is focused on the ways by which cultures impart meanings to behavior and determine how individuals (i.e. parents and peers) perceive, evaluate and react to behavior, regulating, at the same time, its developmental process. \nSpecifically, the behavior under examination is behavioral inhibition defined as a pattern of responding or behaving such that when unfamiliar and/or challenging situation are encountered, the child show signs of reactive anxiety, distress or disorganization and the child has difficulties to calm down. \nData were collected in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, India and Korea. The goal of the study was to explore cultural differences among countries regarding childrearing practices and parenting beliefs that mantain or foster behavioral inhibition. In the more Western cultures, the extent to wich toddlers are rated as socially fearful and shy is associated with more authoritarian parenting styles. In Eastern cultures the emphasis shift frm the promotion of independence, sociability and assertiveness to obedience, compliance and a collettivistic spirit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".