Empirical Evolution of Child Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective & Method: Certified Child Life Specialists are a well-documented component of family-centered care; however, because they typically work as members of multidisciplinary teams, it can be difficult to immediately recognize the scope of their contributions to health care research and practice. As the field continues to grow and evolve, it is even more essential that health care practitioners recognize, implement, and evaluate empirically supported child life services for patients and families across settings. Although the importance of scholarship for practice is well-recognized, there have not yet been any systematic analyses of the child life literature base. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to complete a scoping review of Certified Child Life Specialist authorship, participation, and presence in peer-reviewed journal articles published from 1996 to 2017. Results: Results demonstrate statistically significant increases over time in research that is driven by and focused on Certified Child Life Specialists, as well as emerging trends in populations and interventions studied and the publication outlets in which these articles can be found. Conclusion: These findings highlight that although child life presence in research is increasing, there is more work to be done to improve academic and clinical training related to research, to expand the literature base as it stands, and to advocate for the inclusion of Certified Child Life Specialists in collaborative scholarship to improve psycho-social care for children and families. Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding Statement: No funding sources were provided by the author(s).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".