Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CEECD papers on parenting skills1-10 provide a rich balance of different points of view from key people in the field, presenting the main issues and research findings clearly to a general audience. As a whole, the papers confirm that parenting is critically important to children’s development—a fact that is sometimes downplayed amid the myriad of messages about other factors that contribute to a child’s social and emotional development, such as their non-parental care environments. While there is no single answer as to how to maximize parenting, there is some consensus in the field that warmth combined with control is optimal. To this end, the summary offered by Bornstein and Bornstein4 of Baumrind’s typology of parenting styles—authoritarian, indulgent permissive, authoritative, neglectful—is helpful in establishing a framework for discussion. The CEECD papers also show that in general, the research says that parenting education can make a difference. This is important for community practitioners, and a key concern of the Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs (FRP Canada), a national, non-profit organization that promotes the well-being of families by providing national
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.363 | 0.117 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".