The implications of participating in a Music Early Learning Program for parental sensitivity and socioemotional functioning in children aged 2–5 years: A randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the implications of participating in a Music Early Learning Program (MELP) for parental sensitivity and socioemotional functioning in children aged 2–5 years. Thirty-eight families were randomly assigned to either the MELP or the control group. Data were collected through a semi-structured home-observation protocol administered in the participants’ homes prior to and after the intervention. Parental sensitivity was assessed through independent, blind assessments using the short version of the Maternal Behavior Q-Sort. Parents completed the Behavioral Assessment Scoring System to assess their child’s socioemotional functioning. Consistent with previous studies, we found that participation in a MELP resulted in positive changes in parental sensitivity. Parents in the intervention group obtained improved sensitivity scores compared with participants in the control group, whose scores remained essentially unchanged. No significant differences were found between groups in child socioemotional functioning. These findings suggest that exposure to MELPs may benefit parent–child interactions. Implementing a MELP in a community setting may provide a positive context to help parents interact more predictably and coherently with their children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".