A Functional Analysis of Finger Sucking in Children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation, the authors experimentally assessed the functions of finger sucking for 3 typically developing children ages 6, 7, and 14. In Experiment 1, a parent-conducted functional analysis, completed in each child's natural environment, showed that each of the children's finger sucking was most likely to occur when the child was alone, suggesting that the behaviors were maintained by automatic reinforcement. Experiment 2 involved assessing the nature of the sensory stimulation that maintained finger sucking by attenuating the sensory stimulation to the fingers via the use of Band-Aids and attenuating the sensory stimulation to the mouth with a mild numbing agent for 2 of the 3 children. For the 3rd child, mouthing objects were made available noncontingently to determine whether access to such items would result in low levels of finger sucking, suggesting reinforcer substitutability. Results of these analyses suggested that finger sucking was maintained by both oral and digital stimulation for 2 children and by oral stimulation for the 3rd.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it