Parents' choice of non-supine sleep position for newborns: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the sleeping position of infants attending an outpatient clinic, considering the influences of the back to sleep (BTS) campaign. A paper survey was given to 678 parents who presented their infant (under 1 year of age) to the paediatric chiropractic clinic for care asking their infant's sleep position. Of the total survey sample, 50‥ of parents selected the supine position as the preferred position they placed the baby to sleep, 19‥ of parents preferred to place their babies prone, 34‥ on the babies side and 2‥ selected other. Some mothers selected more than one preferred sleeping position. The initial decline of mothers using non-supine positioning, seen shortly after the implementation of the BTS campaign, is no longer evident. Recent research implies approximately half of infants are now placed in a non-compliant sleeping position. If an infant’s most preferred sleeping position is not that of current guidelines, manual therapy such as chiropractic care should be sought to help infants sleep supine with comfort.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".