Assessing Pain in Infancy: The Caregiver Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is largely accepted as being influenced by social context. Unlike most other developmental stages throughout the lifespan, infancy is marked by complete dependence on the caregiver. The present paper discusses the primary importance of understanding the caregiver context when assessing infant pain expression. OBJECTIVES: Based on a review of research from both the infant pain and infant mental health fields, three lines of evidence are presented. First, pain assessment is as subjective as the pain experience itself. Second, assessors must be cognizant of the relationship between infant pain expression, and caregiver sensitivity and emotional displays. Finally, larger systemic factors of the infant (such as caregiver relationship styles, caregiver psychological distress or caregiver acculturative stress) directly impact on infant expression. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of infants' inability to give a self-report of their pain experience, caregivers play a crucial role in assessing the pain and taking appropriate action to manage it. Caregiver behaviours and predispositions have been shown to have a significant impact on infant pain reactivity and, accordingly, should not be ignored when assessing the infant in pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".