The Causal Impact of Alternative Parental Child Rearing Practices on Adolescent Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the role of parenting style as a determinant of adolescent outcomes has a long history in developmental psychology and sociology, determining causality remains a challenge. In this study we estimate the impact of parental discipline and parental monitoring on a variety of risky behaviors. We use information on random assignment to parental training programs to identify the impact of alternative child rearing practices. Our results indicate that increases in parental supervision can reduce risky behavior, whereas the establishment of rules or disciplines has no significant impacts. Further, the estimated impacts are found to increase in magnitude as a child ages. Finally, we find that child rearing practices should be treated as endogenous and that rich data on child rearing practices is needed since many parenting strategies occur simultaneously to identify impacts of independent behaviors. We are grateful to CLSRN and SSHRC for research support. We wish to thank partici-pants at the 2007 Canadian Labour Market and Skills Researcher Network Annual confer-ence for numerous suggestions and helpful comments. We also wish to than Yi Chen for providing exceptional research assistance. The usual caveat applies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".