Influence of Skin-to-Skin Contact and Rooming-In on Early Mother–Infant Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to study influence of birth routines on mother-infant interaction at Day 4. The present research is part of a longitudinal study where mother-infant pairs were randomized by infant location and apparel. We intended to assess mother-infant interaction from videos filmed at Day 4. A protocol for the assessment/coding of the affective quality of maternal behaviors indicative of early mother-infant interaction was developed and interculturally validated. Results were compared with birth randomization, as to explain impact of birth practices. Findings indicate that separation and swaddling at birth interfered with mother-infant interaction during a breastfeeding session at Day 4; these mothers significantly demonstrated more roughness in their behaviors with their infants at Day 4. Results also show evidences of a sensitive period for separation after birth. Implications are to encourage immediate and uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact at birth, and rooming-in during postpartum, as recommended in World Health Organization/UNICEF Ten Steps for Successful Breastfeeding.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".