A systematic review of lay views about infant size and growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand lay views on infant size and growth and their implications for a British population. METHODS: A systematic review of parental and other lay views about the meanings and importance of infant size and growth using Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, IBSS, ASSIA, British Nursing Index ChildData, Caredata, SIGLE, Dissertation Abstracts (US), Index to Theses. 19 studies, most of which reported the views of mothers, from the US, Canada, the UK and Finland were reviewed. RESULTS: Notions of healthy size and growth were dominated by the concept of normality. Participants created norms by assessing and comparing size and growth against several reference points. When size or growth differed from these norms, explanations were sought for factors that would account for this difference. When no plausible explanation could be found, growth or size became a worry for parents. CONCLUSIONS: Parents consider the importance of contextual factors when judging what is appropriate or healthy growth. For public health advice to be effective, lay, as well as scientific, findings and values need to be considered.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".