Parental Use of “Cry Out” in a Community Sample During the First Year of Infant Life
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to identify the characteristics of parents and infants and parenting practices associated with delayed responsiveness to infant crying during the first year of infant life. A secondary objective was to evaluate, in a subsample of maternal-infant pairs, the associations between delayed responsiveness to infant crying and observational measures of maternal-infant interaction and infant-maternal attachment. METHOD: This is a secondary analysis of the data from a community sample of pregnant women recruited to the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study. Mothers completed questionnaires during the first year of infant life (n = 1826), and a convenience subsample of maternal-infant pairs (n = 137) participated in laboratory assessments of maternal-infant interaction at 6 months of age and infant-maternal attachment at 20 months. RESULTS: Parental use of "cry out" as a strategy to deal with a crying infant was associated with parental characteristics (being white and having a relatively higher income), infant characteristics (higher problematic behavior at 3 months and reduced problematic behavior at 12 months), sleep ecology (infants sleeping alone), and parental soothing strategies (less frequently taking the infant into the parent's bed, cuddling, or carrying the crying infant). Cry out was not associated with observational measures of maternal sensitivity or infant-maternal attachment. CONCLUSION: When used selectively and in response to the specific needs and characteristics of the infant, delayed responsiveness may reduce problematic behavior and does not harm the infant's socioemotional 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it