A Content Analysis of Professional Literature in <i>Child Life Focus</i>: 1999-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Certified Child Life Specialists, as both consumers and producers of research related to the care of children and families in duress, have relied upon Child Life Focus as a source of evidence-based practice since its inception in 1999. However, this resource has not yet been comprehensively examined with respect to trends in authorship, content, format, or alignment with the foundational principles of the child life profession. The purpose of this content analysis was to identify the characteristics of Child Life Focus articles published between 1999 and 2019 to inform future individual, departmental, and organizational efforts to establish the child life profession as an emerging field. Method: Using a deductive coding scheme, two researchers independently coded 82 articles that met inclusion criteria; all discrepancies were resolved through additional review and consensus meetings. Results: Results demonstrate opportunities for collaboration to generate diverse article content, increase congruence with the Child Life Certification Exam Content Outline, and support developing Certified Child Life Specialist clinician/researchers. Conclusion: Although growth is apparent over the two decades included in this study, more work can be done to increase child life scholarship in academic, clinical, and administrative domains. 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 | 0.026 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".