A Functional Analysis of Finger Sucking in Children
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".