Examining the relative contribution of mothers’ and fathers’ executive functions to toddlers’ executive functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions (EFs) are known to emerge early in child development and contribute, along with other factors, to the acquisition of socio-emotional skills, language abilities and academic achievement. Some studies have demonstrated an association between mothers’ EFs and children’s EFs, but only a few have included both parents. The objective of this study is therefore to examine the relative contribution of EFs of both parents on the development of EFs in early childhood. A sample of 67 expectant parents (both mothers and fathers) reported on their EFs during pregnancy. When their child was two years-old, parents completed a questionnaire reporting on their child’s EFs. Multiple linear regressions show that, globally, each parent’s lower EFs uniquely contribute to predict the child's EFs, namely lower inhibition, flexibility and emergent metacognition. Maternal metacognitive EFs and paternal behavioural EFs are the main predictors of children’s EFs. Parental behaviours’ contribution to children’s cognitive development are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".