MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104834518 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jst001

Infant Attachment and Toddlers’ Sleep Assessed by Maternal Reports and Actigraphy: Different Measurement Methods Yield Different Relations

2013· article· en· W2104834518 on OpenAlexafffund
Valérie Simard, Annie Bernier, Marie‐Ève Bélanger, Julie Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsActigraphySleep (system call)PsychologySleep diaryNocturnalSleep onsetDevelopmental psychologyDuration (music)InsomniaMedicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate relations between children's attachment and sleep, using objective and subjective sleep measures. Secondarily, to identify the most accurate actigraphy algorithm for toddlers. METHODS: 55 mother-child dyads took part in the Strange Situation Procedure (18 months) to assess attachment. At 2 years, children wore an Actiwatch for a 72-hr period, and their mothers completed a sleep diary. RESULTS: The high sensitivity (80) and smoothed actigraphy algorithms provided the most plausible sleep data. Maternal diaries yielded longer estimated sleep duration and shorter wake duration at night and showed poor agreement with actigraphy. More resistant attachment behavior was not associated with actigraphy-assessed sleep, but was associated with longer nocturnal wake duration as estimated by mothers, and with a reduced actigraphy-diary discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers of children with resistant attachment are more aware of their child's nocturnal awakenings. Researchers and clinicians should select the best sleep measurement method for their specific needs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207