Coregulation and the Quality of the Relationship in Full‐Term and Very Low‐Birthweight Preterm Infant‐Mother Dyads During Face‐To‐Face Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions with parents build the foundation for infants' social–emotional development. This study investigated coregulation of the interaction and quality of relationship between mothers and their 6‐month‐old full‐term (n = 43) and very low‐birthweight/preterm (VLBW/preterm; n = 44; ages corrected for prematurity) infants. The objectives were to examine (1) how coregulation changed following a perturbed interaction, (2) how coregulation differed between full‐term and VLBW/preterm infant–mother dyads, and (3) the association between coregulation and relationship quality. Coregulation was coded using the Revised Relational Coding System (Fogel et al., 2003). Quality of the relationship was measured using the Emotional Availability scales (Biringen et al., 2014; Carter et al., 1998). Dyads participated in the Still‐Face (SF) procedure (Tronick et al., 1978) consisting of two natural and one SF period where mothers assumed a neutral expression, refraining from interacting with their infants. Following the SF period, dyads engaged in more symmetrical and more disruptive patterns of coregulation. While full‐term dyads engaged in more sequential‐symmetrical, VLBW/preterm dyads engaged in more resonant‐symmetrical coregulation. These results suggest that VLBW/preterm dyads may show more emotional reactivity in their interactions than full‐term dyads; however, in both groups infant responsiveness and parenting stress influenced the types of coregulation exhibited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".