Disrupting the Status Quo: A New Theoretical Vision for the Child Life Profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective & Method: Pediatric patient populations are changing and health care environments are becoming increasingly more complex. Child life professionals must adapt to the realities of today’s health care spaces if they hope to make a difference in the lives of hospitalized children and their families. This paper explores some of the challenges associated with the current ways of thinking and theoretical orientations, which can impede professional growth and psychosocial care as a whole. For example, practice and scholarship continue to be guided by developmental theories, with little regard for how race and other social determinants may affect child health outcomes. Results & Conclusion: As a way forward, child life professionals must consider engaging in a paradigmatic shift whereby new theories and approaches can address the realities of racial disparities and reject the antiquated views of childhood embedded within established developmental theories. 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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.108 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".