MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190118920 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsab072

Parenting Practices, Bedtime Routines, and Consistency: Associations with Pediatric Sleep Problems

2021· article· en· W3190118920 on OpenAlexaff
Janavi Shetty, Adam T. Newton, Graham J. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedtimePsychologySleep (system call)Developmental psychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)Clinical psychologyReactivity (psychology)PsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the direct and moderating effects of daytime parenting practices on the relationship between bedtime routines and pediatric sleep problems. METHODS: A community sample of 407 parents with children 2-10 years old completed measures of parenting practices (i.e., laxness and over-reactivity) and bedtime routines (i.e., consistency and reactivity to changes in routines). Sleep problems (i.e., severity and signaled night waking) were assessed by a parent-report questionnaire and sleep diaries. RESULTS: Higher parenting laxness (β = .13) and less bedtime routine consistency (β = -.34) significantly predicted sleep problem severity. Laxness moderated the relationship between bedtime reactivity and sleep problem severity: when bedtime reactivity was high, higher parental laxness was associated with more severe sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: Daytime parenting practices are important to consider when children are reactive to changes in bedtime routines, as permissive or inconsistent daytime parenting practices were found to be associated with more severe sleep problems. Future research should examine the effects of parenting practices and bedtime routines on problematic signaled night waking in a clinical sample of children.

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)0.001
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207