MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070920601

The relationship between home visiting and parental behaviour in a community based prevention research project

2001· dissertation· en· W7070920601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Multivariate analysis of varianceSample (material)Child rearingDescriptive researchResearch designDescriptive statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study used data collected from the interviews conducted on the participants of the 'Better Beginnings, Better Futures' research demonstration project carried out in four sites in Ontario, Canada. The sample size was 370 parents with children aged 18 and 33 months. All the participants were from neighborhoods identified as at risk in the selected sites (Guelph, Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto). The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of home visiting on participants, parenting behaviour as measured by the Parenting Practices Scale (Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988), and whether being born in or outside Canada had an influence on parental behaviour. The study also sought to establish if there was a relationship between home visiting and the use of community resources, and whether being born in or outside Canada had an influence on the utilization of community resources by parents when their children are 18 and 33 months old. In addition the study will provide descriptive information about the home visited parents of the 'Better Beginnings, Better Futures ' project. Overall MANOVA results did not show significant results in either parenting behaviour or utilization of community resources of parents who received some or a lot of home visiting. Being born in or outside Canada did not influence parenting behaviour but it influenced the utilization of community resources at 18 months.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207