MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937166346 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.791

0793 A Comparison Of Children’s Sleep Characteristics From A Community Sample And From Child Protection Services For Child Neglect.

2019· article· en· W2937166346 on OpenAlexaff
K Mercier, Annie Bérubé, Geneviève Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectBedtimePsychologyContext (archaeology)Sleep (system call)Child neglectMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPoison controlChild abuseInjury preventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child neglect is associated with many factors that are likely to adversely affect children’s sleep quality. However, almost no studies compared sleep of children who have been exposed to this type of maltreatment to those who haven’t. The aim of this study was to compare sleep of children growing up in a neglect context to sleep of children coming from a similar socio-economic background but not exposed to parental neglect. Items derived from the Child’s sleep habits questionnaire (CSHQ) were assessed in two cohorts of mothers of children aged 2 to 79 months, attending either an intervention group for child neglect (n=52) or activities offered by community services (n=92). A repeated measures ANCOVA was computed to assess the differences in the children’s sleep reported by both group of mothers. The child’s sleep variables used were total sleep time (TST), bedtime struggles (BS), nocturnal awakenings (NA), excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and the capacity to fall asleep by himself (FAH). Age was included as a covariate because of its close relationship with sleep. A significant Group X Sleep variables interaction was found [F (2.41,564)=19.69, p=.002], showing that the sleep variables were varying differently according to groups. Single comparison follow-up analysis using independent t-tests specified that mothers of children in the neglect group report higher TST than the mothers in the community group (10h48±1h37 vs 10h02±1h32 respectively; t(142)=-2.82, p=.005). On the other hand, mothers from the neglect group also indicate more EDS than the mothers in the community group (1.57±.82 vs 1.25 ±.53; t(77.13) = -2.52, p=.014). No other difference was found. Knowing that, in a child neglect population, parents tend to report higher level of daytime sleepiness even though they also report longer sleep duration in their child, future research should attempt to objectively evaluate children’s sleep quality in this population. None

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207