MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073142663 · doi:10.1002/icd.525

Sleeping with baby: an internet‐based sampling of parental experiences, choices, perceptions, and interpretations in a western industrialized context

2007· article· en· W2073142663 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionContext (archaeology)NarrativeDevelopmental psychologySample (material)Social psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mothers and infants sleeping within proximity to each other (co‐sleeping) represents normal, healthy, and expectable human behaviour, especially if mothers breastfeed. Yet, western health officials generally recommend against particularly one form of co‐sleeping known as bedsharing. This study explores these issues and especially highlights parental accounts of their sleep practices, interpretations, and reflections based on detailed narratives or ‘ethnohistories.’ The sample involves a self‐selected sub‐group of over 200 mostly middle‐class mothers from Canada, the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. Mothers report how and why they adopted co‐sleeping practices, how satisfied they are (or were) with their decisions, and what benefits they think they or their infants derived from their co‐sleeping practices. Also included in the reports are a surprisingly high number of parents who think they may have saved their infant's life by bedsharing, data heretofore never reported in the literature. The formulation of medical policies, we suggest, ultimately must be informed by a full understanding of how parents actually think about and subsequently structure their infant's sleep, what their goals and expectations are, and by an awareness of the emotional factors motivating parents to choose certain sleeping arrangements over others. The results reveal that many factors coalesce, often in unique ways, under unique circumstances, family by family, to determine where babies sleep and why. We conclude that sleeping arrangements are not solely determined by medically based recommendations, but also by the method of feeding, the particular needs of a particular infant, and the needs of mothers and fathers to get more sleep. While baby sleep locations and sleep patterns change in the first year of life, nighttime sleeping arrangements almost always reflect the nature of family values and the quality of social relationships at any given time. We conclude that these factors, alongside widely known independent SIDS risk factors, must also be acknowledged and respected if we are ever to achieve an effective and inclusive public health approach to the question of creating safe sleep environments for infants and children. 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.260 · 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