Perceptions of Vulnerability and Variations in Childrearing Practices of Parents of Infants Born Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Introduction and Purpose: To determine differences in Canadian, Norwegian, and Dutch parents' perceptions of vulnerability of their infants born preterm and their childrearing practices. Methods: This observational study included 62 infants born preterm (46% boys) and their parents. Parents completed the Beliefs About My Baby Scale and the Daily Activities of Infants Scale when infants were between 4 and 11 months corrected age. One-way analyses of variance were conducted. Results: Parents in the Netherlands perceived their infants as being more vulnerable than parents in the other countries (P < .001). The total Daily Activities of Infants Scale scores did not differ across countries. Parents who received therapy services had greater perceptions of their infants' vulnerability than parents not receiving services (P = .01). Conclusions: Prematurity stereotyping is not limited to North America. Service providers need to consider therapy for infants born preterm from a strength-based rather than disability perspective. The authors found that parents in the Netherlands perceived their infants as being more vulnerable than parents in the other countries and parents who received therapy had greater perceptions of their infants' vulnerability than those not receiving services, causing them to suggest considering therapy for infants born preterm from a strengths-based rather than disability perspective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".