Electronic and Paper Diary Recording of Infant and Caregiver Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) preference of parental use of an electronic diary (e-diary) over a paper diary to record continuous infant and caregiver behaviors over 7 days; (2) whether e-diary recordings would differ in systematic ways from those obtained by paper diaries, and (3) frequency of diary entries when parents provide entries when convenient. METHODS: Mothers of normal newborns were randomized at 5 weeks infant age to a paper diary first (n = 34) or e-diary first (n = 35) group. With 3 days between, mothers completed 7-day recordings on both the paper Baby's Day Diary and an analogous personal digital assistant e-diary for infant (sleep, awake alert, feeding, fussing, crying, inconsolable crying) and caregiver (carrying/holding, moving) behaviors, and completed post diary ease-of-use ratings and poststudy preference ratings. RESULTS: Mothers found e-diaries less bothersome but similarly disruptive and enjoyable to paper diaries. At study end, more found e-diaries easier to use, less bothersome and more efficient. E-diary behaviors were consistently more frequent, but rarely different in duration, then paper diary behaviors. Time-stamped e-diary entries (1) generally declined across weeks, (2) were higher if e-diaries were used first, and (3) settled at a modal 2 to 3 entries/day by the second week. CONCLUSIONS: For behavioral recording of infant and caregiver behaviors, mothers generally expressed more approval for e-diaries than paper diaries, but neither was considered onerous. E-diaries consistently report more frequent but similar durations of behaviors. If recording when convenient, daily diary entries trend toward 2 to 3 entries a day. The e-diary results provide convergent evidence that paper diary recordings of common infant and caregiver behavior durations provide good estimates of durations, but that behavioral frequencies may be underestimated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".