MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115945753 · doi:10.1002/imhj.21903

Adaptation of babies in three types of placement: An ethological approach

2020· article· en· W3115945753 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Edwige Ducreux, Guadalupe Puentes‐Neuman

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant Mental Health Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present pilot study focuses on the adaptive processes of babies who are placed during their first months of life. It used an ethological approach to explore the behavioural adjustment of 19 infants from their arrival in placement through their first 6 weeks in Residential Care (RC; France), a Foster Family (FF; Québec) or an Infant-Mother Centre (IMC; Québec). Direct observations were conducted once a week during feeding sessions. Observed behaviours were as follows: sleep-wake state, self-soothing, burp, visual exploration, motor activity, facial and vocal expressions. Then, a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine differences in babies' adaption as a function of placement setting. Results showed that, in RC, the duration of the post-feeding phase is the shortest. Moreover, these institutionalized babies showed the most modes of self-protection and the fewest vocalizations. By contrast, babies placed in the IMC spent the least time in withdrawal, expressed motor activity more regularly and were never placed back in their recliner before burping. Larger differences appear comparing placement in RC and that in the IMC, the placement in FF showing intermediate results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfant Mental Health JournalSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207