Comparaison des caractéristiques comportementales de l'état d'alerte spontané et de l'état libéré chez le nouveau-né à terme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists evaluate the capacities of infants at younger ages than ever before. The variability of the infants' state has an inevitable influence on the expression of their behaviours. In order to counter the effect of this instability, Grenier (1985) suggests inducing the "liberated state," which optimizes the infant's level of attention. The aim of this study was to identify the behaviours that discriminate this liberated state from the alert state (state 4) as described by Brazelton (1973). Some of the parameters that were defined in the Synactive Theory of Development Model (Als, 1982) were used in order to document the behaviours of the infants observed in the two different states. The average age of the infants, at the time of observation, was 62 hours. The duration of the observation was 5 minutes. Among the 54 newborns that were evaluated, 21 were observed in the two states under study; 33 were evaluated in one state only. The results confirm a greater stability of the "liberated state". Stress and self-regulation behaviours, and the need for external regulation are less frequent in this state; these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Goal-directed movements are more frequent in the "liberated state" (p < 0.001). The authors suggest the use of the "liberated state" to further document the early capacities of infants.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".