Caregiver Emotional Availability, Caregiver Soothing Behaviors, and Infant Pain During Immunization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether caregivers with more extreme emotional availability scores enact different levels of soothing behaviors and whether infants of these caregivers differ in their pain scores across the first year of life. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses (analyses of variance and multivariate analyses of variance) were conducted with parent-infant dyads at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age who had extreme caregiver emotional availability scores. Pain scores were examined using a minimum clinically significant difference. RESULTS: Infants with lower pain scores had caregivers who were in the high emotional availability group. This effect was most pronounced during the regulatory period at 2 months, and clinically significant differences in pain scores were found during the regulatory period at 12 months. Physical comforting and/or rocking were characteristic of caregivers with high emotional availability. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that caregiver emotional availability, in the extremes, do have clinically meaningful relationships with infant pain regulation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".