MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W35849801 · doi:10.1093/pch/15.7.432

Maternal relationship style, paediatric health care use and infant health

2010· article· en· W35849801 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Horton, Laila Din Osmun, Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Bonnie Stevens, Saul Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStyle (visual arts)Health carePediatricsNursingPsychologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current exploratory study was to examine the relationships between maternal relationship style, paediatric health care use and infant health variables in a sample of middle-class and ethnically diverse mother-infant dyads. METHODS: An initial cross-sectional cohort study obtained demographic and self-report data on mothers' relationship styles. As an extension of the original study, infants' patient files were reviewed for the year following initial recruitment to obtain data regarding the use of paediatric health care services and infant health. The final sample included 64 mothers and their infants. RESULTS: Correlational analyses revealed that mothers' higher endorsement of a dismissive relationship style were associated with fewer acute care visits and fewer reported infant illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other relationship styles, mothers who highly endorsed a dismissive relationship style tended to use fewer acute paediatric health care services and reported fewer infant health problems. However, further longitudinal research is needed to clarify these relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207