MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808977696 · doi:10.1177/0894318418774947

A Proposed Nursing Theory: Infant Sleep and Development

2018· article· en· W2808977696 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Keys, Karen Benzies

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing theorySleep (system call)Development theoryChild developmentDevelopmental psychologyHuman development (humanity)PsychologyNursing practiceNursingPediatric nursingWork (physics)MedicineMEDLINEComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although well positioned to work with families of young children, nurses do not yet have a theory that guides practice and research by relating infant sleep to child and family development. The authors of this paper describe a proposed theory that combines Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development with the Barnard model of parent-child interaction to inform nursing practice and research related to infant sleep and optimizing child and family development. The theory focuses on sustainability of change in family processes and infant sleep, with a goal of optimizing family wellness as the proximal environment for child development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207