Parental Hours of Work and Child Behavioural and Emotional Outcomes. Conférence "Familles canadiennes sous tension ?", Montréal, may 19 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research uses cycles 1 to 4 of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children (NLSCY) to examine the relationship between parental hours of work and non-standard work schedules, the family environment children experience as measured by family functioning, parenting, and parental depression, and children's behavioural and emotional scores. Children who were four to eleven years of age between 1994 to 2001 and for whom at least two observations are available are selected to estimate the impact of hours of work and those same children whose parents were both working (was working for single-parents) are selected for the analysis of shift work. Children's scores include hyperactivity, conduct disorder, indirect aggression, and emotional disorder scores. The study exploits the longitudinal feature of the data and relies on changes in parental work schedules over time to identify within unit effects. The results indicate that long hours of work are a strain on parental outcomes in two parent families, although they do not appear to have consistent direct impacts on child outcomes. Children in single parent families do worse on a number of measures and so do their parents, but the outcomes are not systematically related to hours of work. As for shift work, night and evening shifts in two parent families appear to worsen certain child outcomes, while maternal split and on call shifts worsen parental depression and parenting. On the other hand, parental outcomes tend to be improved for children living in single parent families when the parent works night shifts. The findings therefore suggest that hours of work and shift work can be a problem, but in two parent families rather than in single parent families. Further, the impact of shift work is not negative for all types of shift work nor is it always the same for boys and girls.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".