MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cobedding of Twins: A Natural Extension of the Socialization Process?

2003· review· en· W2021426826 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Hayward

Bibliographic record

VenueMCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)SocializationPsychologyNatural (archaeology)Space (punctuation)Extension (predicate logic)Developmental psychologyProcess (computing)Social psychologyComputer scienceBiologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the point of conception, twins share a small, dark, enclosed space in which their bodies touch and are jostled together. Each twin is constantly interacting with his or her fellow womb-mate. At birth, they leave their warm, comforting environment and are separated from each other by well-meaning healthcare providers. In recent years many have come to recognize a need for twins to remain together in a common crib after birth as institutions initiate developmental care, and implement policies that help to alleviate the stress after birth. Cobedding is a newly recognized developmental care practice that could help twins adjust to the extrauterine environment by allowing them to coregulate their body temperatures, sleep/wake cycles, and state-regulation, and self-soothe as well as soothe each other. The potential benefits and risks of cobedding twins are explored in this article through a review of literature.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child NursingSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207