MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963710614 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n6p118

Infant sleeping and feeding patterning: A cultural perspective on maternal practices

2012· article· en· W1963710614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orly Sarid, Yana Shraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationBedtimeDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Marital statusDemographyPsychologyPediatricsMedicinePopulationGeographySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To compare practices of Israeli native-born and soviet immigrant mothers in relation to the sleeping and feeding routines of their three, six and twelve month old infants. Methods: Seventy mothers of infants up to the age of twenty-four months, half native born and half immigrant from the Former Soviet Union (FSU), reported sleep and feeding patterning for their infants at three, six and twelve months. Mothers were matched by socio-demographic characteristics of age, marital status and education. Infant’s age and gender were matched as well. Issues addressed included feeding method, adherence to feeding and bedtime schedules, age of infant when mother return to work outside the home. Results: FSU mothers share a similar feeding and sleeping pattern for their six and twelve month old infants, while native born mothers keep diverse and flexible feeding routines. Conclusions: We suggest that maternal practices reflect cultural norms. In the case of Soviet culture, a developmental- educational approach emphasizes the parental role in modifying and adjusting child’s behavior, while Israeli culture encourages parental responsiveness to the individual child’s specific needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207