MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7063913399

Adaptation of the Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) program for expectant parents: a pilot study

2024· dissertation· en· W7063913399 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersWinnipeg Foundation
KeywordsChildbirthPositive parentingPunishment (psychology)PreparednessParenting skillsFocus groupPregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many parts of the world prenatal education classes are a common practice that primarily focus on pregnancy and childbirth yet only minimally on preparation for parenthood and child development. Although pregnancy and childbirth are a relatively small proportion of the parenthood journey compared to the years spent parenting, there are currently no wide-spread prenatal parent education programs. Parents who do not understand expected child development or the harmful effects of punishment might respond to their children in ways that could have negative outcomes. Based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1990), the Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) program (Durrant, 2013) aims to reduce the incidence of physical punishment and promote positive parent-child relationships and healthy child development. PDEP was originally designed to be delivered to parents and caregivers of children from birth to 18 years of age. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of delivering a modified version of the PDEP program to expectant parents, focusing on the first year of life. The modified program was named Positive Foundations for Everyday Parenting (PFEP), and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991) provided the theoretical foundation for this research. Participants’ knowledge of child development, preparedness for parenting and attitudes towards physical punishment were measured via a 10-item pretest and posttest, along with open-ended questions on the program itself. Findings showed that participants enjoyed the program and found the content to be helpful. All participants agreed they felt more confident about becoming a parent since taking PFEP and what they learned will help them better understand their baby and build a strong relationship with their baby. There was a trend noted in participants’ feeling better prepared for parenthood compared to pre-program. Findings from this pilot study provide support for larger scale intervention and research, and as a resource for nurses who care for families and expectant parents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→