A Comparison of Maternal versus Paternal Nonverbal Behavior During Child Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental behavior plays a significant role in children's pain response. Prior research has found generally no differences between mothers' and fathers' verbal behavior during child pain. This study compared mothers' and fathers' nonverbal behavior during child pain. Nonverbal behavior of mothers (n = 39) and fathers (n = 39) of 39 children (20 boys) aged 8 to 12 years who participated in the cold pressor task (counterbalanced once with each parent) was coded. A range of nonverbal behaviors were coded, including distraction, physical proximity, physical comfort/reassurance, procedure-related attending behavior, and fidgeting. The most common behaviors parents engaged in were fidgeting, procedure-related attending behaviors, and physical proximity. Results indicated that the types of nonverbal behavior parents engage in did not differ between mothers and fathers. However, children of mothers who engaged in more physical comfort/reassurance reported higher levels of pain intensity, and children of mothers who engaged in more procedure-related attending behaviors had lower pain tolerance. Further, both mothers and fathers who engaged in higher levels of verbal nonattending behaviors also engaged in lower levels of nonverbal procedure-related attending behaviors. These findings further support the importance of considering the influence of mothers and fathers in children's pain, and provide novel insights into the role of nonverbal behavior.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".