MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Universe of Developmental Care

2008· article· en· W2029451420 on OpenAlex
Sharyn Gibbins, Steven B. Hoath, Mary Coughlin, Alan Gibbins, Linda S. Franck

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenSunnybrook Health Science CentreSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismIsolation (microbiology)MedicineOrganismPoint (geometry)Clinical PracticeEpistemologyNursingBioinformaticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developmental care for high-risk infants is practiced in most neonatal units around the world. Despite its wide acceptance, inconsistency in its definition and application has resulted in criticism regarding its scientific merit. The universe of developmental care model proposed in this article is the first major reformulation of neonatal developmental care theory since Als' synactive theory. Neither the developing brain nor the environment exists in isolation, and therefore are dependent on each other for all caregiving activities. Central to this model is the concept of a shared surface, manifested most obviously by the skin that forms the critical link between the body/organism and environment and becomes the focal point for human interactions. The components of the model and its theoretical underpinnings, its practical application and direction for future clinical practice, education, and research are presented.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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