The Father at the Bedside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Father's involvement is important to child development, yet little is known about how fathers are involved with their newborns in neonatal intensive care. The purpose of this study was to describe patterns of fathers' involvement with their infants during hospitalization. Eighteen fathers of infants hospitalized were interviewed and asked to describe how they were involved with their infants. Interview, sociodemographic, and infant medical data were analyzed using cross-case analysis to describe patterns of involvement. Three patterns were identified. Equal to mother fathers perceived their involvement to be the same as the mothers'. They were intrinsically motivated, not working, and spent many hours daily with their infants. They engaged in skin-to-skin care and bathed their infants. Mother more important fathers viewed the mothers' role as more important. They were working, visited a few hours most days, and perceived their role as supporting the mothers. Reluctant fathers were reticent to become involved, described extrinsic sources of motivation, and were fearful of handling their infants. Not all fathers wish to be involved to the same extent with their infants. Nurses need to assess fathers' preferences and facilitate involvement to the extent that they feel comfortable.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".