Descriptive analysis of parent–child interactions in young children with or at risk for developmental delay
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Children with developmental delay (DD) are at risk for behavior problems, but little is known about natural contingencies of reinforcement that these children experience. The present study used descriptive analysis (antecedent–behavior–consequence observations) to study parent–child interactions of fourty‐seven, 2–3 year‐old children with or at risk for DD. Child adaptive and inappropriate behavior as well as their antecedents and consequences were observed across four conditions (free play, parent‐directed play, mealtimes, parental distraction). When parents were engaged in another task (distraction), child appropriate behavior occurred less frequently than in the other conditions, and child inappropriate behavior occurred 63% of the time. A lack of parental attention and no activity were the most frequent antecedents for inappropriate behavior. Potential positive reinforcers appeared as consequences of inappropriate child behavior 77% of the time. These findings have implications for the development and prevention of serious behavior disorders. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it