Influence of father–infant relationship on infant development: A father-involvement intervention in Vietnam.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the extent to which fathers can be taught and encouraged to develop positive relationships with their children, especially in infancy, and the effects of this fathering intervention on infant development. A multifaceted relationally focused intervention was used to assist fathers in Vietnam to engage in responsive direct and indirect involvement with their infants and work together with the mother as part of a parenting team. Fathers and mothers from 13 communes in a rural and semiurban district were recruited to the intervention group. Intervention fathers received group and individual counseling before and after birth, an interactive print resource, community messages about fathering, and the opportunity to participate in a Fathers Club. Couples from 12 comparable communes in a noncontiguous district were recruited to the control group. Fathers and mothers completed questionnaires at the prebirth recruitment and at 1-, 4-, and 9-months postbirth. Intervention fathers demonstrated greater increase in knowledge and attitudes regarding father-infant relationships. Both fathers and mothers reported that fathers engaged in more affection, care-taking, and play in the early months of their infants' lives and fathers felt more attached to their infants right from birth. A developmental assessment at 9 months showed that intervention infants demonstrated higher levels of motor, language, and personal/social development. This study demonstrated that fathers can be taught to interact more sensitively, responsively, and effectively with their newborn infants. Their increased interaction and emotional attachment appears to lay the foundation for enhanced infant development. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".