ADoes Mother or Father Know Best? An Assessment of Parent/Child Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We would like to thank Emmanuelle Pierard for excellent research assistance and Lars Osberg for his very helpful comments. We use data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth to address two questions. To what extent do parents and children agree when asked identical questions about child well-being? To what extent do differences in their responses affect what one infers from multivariate analysis of the data? The correspondence between parent and child in the assessment of child well-being is only slight to fair. Agreement is stronger for more observable outcomes, such as schooling performance, and weaker for less observable outcomes, such as emotional disorders. We regress both sets of responses on a standard set of socioeconomic characteristics. We also conduct formal and informal tests of the differences in what one would infer from these two sets of regressions. 11 Exceptions include math and vocabulary test scores and, in the case of the NLSCY, responses from teachers and principals. The latter have not been made available for research purposes. Papers which use the NLSY include Blau (1999), Blau and Grossberg (1992), Korenman et al. (1998). Papers which use the NLSCY include Dooley, et al. (1998), Boyle and
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 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 teacher head, 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".