MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939289332 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.251

0252 Infant Sleep-Related Parental Expectations

2019· article· en· W2939289332 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Kenny, Gabrielle Leduc, Christopher Kalogeropoulos, Karine Dubois‐Comtois, Marie‐Julie Béliveau, Marie Hélène Pennestri

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNocturnalPediatricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is major inter- and intra-variability related to infant sleep patterns, possibly leading to a vast range of parental expectations. While expectations have been identified as a key factor in the emotional adjustment of new parents, they have not been studied in relation to infant sleep. This study aimed to 1) document the age parents expect an infant to sleep through the night, and 2) explore whether parental expectations are related to specific parental characteristics or practices. Seventy parents of 6 month-old infants (35 couples) were asked at what age they expect an infant to sleep through the night. Divided into 2 groups (thinking an infant should sleep through the night by 6 months of age, or not), attitudes about co-sleeping, feeding method, and criticism related to nocturnal parental practices were measured using the Sleep Practices Questionnaire (SPQ). Participants were compared using independent t-tests and chi-squares. Results showed high variability in the age participants expected infants to sleep through the night, ranging from 1 to 12 months old. While 37.1% of participants expected that an infant should sleep through the night by 6 months of age, 62.9% of participants did not. Furthermore, approximately 75% of parents (mother-father couples) had similar expectations about infant sleep. Gender and education were not associated with expectations (p > 0.05). However, expectations varied as a function of feeding method: 29.4 % parents of breastfed infants thought an infant should sleep through the night by 6 months of age as opposed to 57.9% of parents of non-breastfed infants (χ2 = 4.8; p ≤ 0.05). Parents not expecting that infants should sleep through the night by 6 months of age were more favorable to co-sleeping and were more prone to feel criticism regarding their nocturnal parental practices (p ≤ 0.05). These preliminary data suggest that there is a high variability in sleep-related expectations. While education and gender were not related to these expectations, parental practices were. Clinicians should be aware of differences in parental expectations, practices and values when giving advice related to sleep. SSHRC, FRQS

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207