MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977250884 · doi:10.1002/icd.510

Infant touching behaviour during mother–infant face‐to‐face interactions

2007· article· en· W1977250884 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersJewish General HospitalConcordia University
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyTactile stimuliCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study of infant communication during mother–infant interactions has largely focused on infants' distal behaviours, while neglecting their more proximal behaviours, such as touch. Yet, touch is an important modality through which infants and mothers communicate; it is also a vital means through which infants self‐regulate and explore their surroundings. The present study was designed to investigate the touching behaviours of 44, 51/2‐month‐old, healthy, full‐term infants during face‐to‐face mother–infant interactions. A still‐face (SF) procedure was used in order to examine differences in the types and locations of infant touch across normal and perturbed interaction periods, when mothers exhibit changes in their emotional availability. Results revealed that infant touch varied with changes in maternal availability. During the SF period, when mothers were unavailable, infants used more active, soothing, and reactive tactile behaviours (stroke, finger, pat, and pull), and they spent more time touching themselves. In contrast, infants used mostly passive touch (static) during the Normal periods, when their mothers were available. They also spent a significant portion of time touching their mothers. The variations in infant touch across periods suggest that infants communicate their affective states through touch. The findings also support the regulatory and exploratory roles of infant touch, especially during periods of maternal unavailability. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.340 · 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