Caregiver Soothing Behaviors After Immunization and Infant Attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There were 2 primary objectives to the current study: (1) to relate caregiver behavior trajectories across immunization appointments over the first year of life to subsequent infant attachment and (2) to relate caregiver behavior trajectories within each immunization appointment over the first year of life to subsequent infant attachment. METHOD: A subsample of 130 caregivers and their infants were recruited from a sample of 760 caregivers who were part of an ongoing longitudinal cohort that videotaped infants' 2-, 4-, 6-, and 12-month immunization appointments. This subsample of caregivers and their infants (n = 130) were invited to participate in an assessment of attachment when infants were between 12 and 18 months of age at the local children's hospital. RESULTS: Caregiver proximal soothing behaviors were the only caregiver behaviors postimmunization that were related to subsequent infant attachment. Higher frequencies of caregiver proximal soothing at 12 months were related to infants' organized attachment, whereas steeper decreases in proximal soothing across the first year were associated with disorganized infant attachment. In addition, when caregivers engaged in proximal soothing for longer after their 12 month olds' immunizations, these infants were more likely to be secure or organized in their attachment. CONCLUSION: These results provide empirical support for the ecological validity of studying infant attachment in a pediatric pain context. The pediatric "well-baby" visit may provide a potential opportunity to feasibly integrate brief infant mental health screening and intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".