MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140403740 · doi:10.1177/1054773812468316

Influence of Skin-to-Skin Contact and Rooming-In on Early Mother–Infant Interaction

2013· article· en· W2140403740 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingSkin to skinMedicineLongitudinal studyObstetricsDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyNursingPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.395 · 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