Let's (Not) Talk About Pain: Mothers' and Fathers' Beliefs Regarding Reminiscing About Past Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's memories for past pain set the stage for their future pain experiences. Parent-child reminiscing about pain plays a key role in shaping children's pain memories. Parental beliefs about the functions of reminiscing are associated with parental reminiscing behaviors. To date, no studies have investigated parental beliefs regarding the functions of reminiscing about past pain or the associations between parental beliefs and reminiscing about past pain. This study aimed to fill these gaps. One-hundred and seven parents (52% fathers) of young children were asked about their beliefs regarding reminiscing about past pain. Interview data were first analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. A coding scheme was created based on the generated themes to quantitatively characterize parental beliefs. Parents also reminisced with their children about unique past events involving pain. Parent-child reminiscing narratives were coded to capture parent reminiscing behaviors. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis generated three major themes representing parental beliefs regarding reminiscing about past pain: "reminiscing to process past pain," "reminiscing as a learning tool," and "avoiding reminiscing about past pain." Parents who endorsed avoiding reminiscing used fewer optimal reminiscing elements (i.e., open-ended questions) when reminiscing about past painful experiences with children. Parents who endorsed reminiscing to process past pain used more emotion-laden language when reminiscing about past pain. Mothers and fathers of boys and girls endorsed the reminiscing functions to a similar degree. Parents of older, vs. younger, children endorsed reminiscing to process past pain to a greater degree. Developmental considerations and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
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 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 | 0.064 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".