Relationship disruption stress in human infants: A validation study with experimental and control groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined whether the psychological stress of the still-face (SF) task (i.e. stress resulting from a parent's unresponsiveness) is a valid laboratory stress paradigm for evaluating infant cortisol reactivity. Given that factors external to the experimental paradigm, such as arriving at a new place, may cause an elevation in cortisol secretion; we tested the hypothesis that infants would show a cortisol response to the SF task but not to a normal FF task (control). Saliva was collected for cortisol measurement from 6-month-old infants (n = 31) randomly assigned to either a repeated SF task or to a continuous FF task. Parent-infant dyads were videotaped. Salivary cortisol concentration was measured at baseline, 20, and 30 min after the start of the procedure. Infant salivary cortisol concentrations showed a significant increase over time for the SF task but not for the FF task. The results provide new evidence that the repeated SF task provides a psychological challenge that is due to the SF condition rather than to some non-task related factor; these results provide internal validity for the paradigm. The study offers new insight into the role of parent-infant interactions in the activation of the infant stress response system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".