MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estudo pessoa-processo-contexto da qualidade das interações entre mãe-adolescente e seu bebê

2007· article· pt· W2157903540 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc Bigras, Daniel Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência & Saúde Coletiva · 2007
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To understand the transmission mechanisms of psychosocial difficulties prompted by teenage mother and baby interactions. The hypothesis is that the quality of the mother-child exchanges relies on linked with the characteristics of the mother, such as being abused and poor preparation for motherhood, as well as the characteristics of the child. METHOD: Direct observation of the quality of exchanges between 97 primipara adolescents and their four month old babies. The teens were 13-18 years old, in the 26th week of pregnancy, from four homes run by the Youth Center in Montréal and Rosalie-Jetté School. They completed questionnaires on their preparation for motherhood and histories of emotional abuse. RESULTS: The lack of knowledge (during pregnancy) on the development and types of care needed by babies is linked with insensitive maternal exchanges with the four month old child. An interactive effect was seen between the characteristics of the mother and baby. CONCLUSION: The interaction between the characteristics of the mother and her baby may trigger a negative feedback cycle that will hamper harmonious interpersonal relationships to an increasing extent over time, noted most frequently when the partners react to adversity, being less able to soothe the exchanges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência & Saúde ColetivaSame topicPsychology and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207