MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362542214 · doi:10.1080/01612840.2023.2192794

History of “Serve and Return” and a Synthesis of the Literature on Its Impacts on Children’s Health and Development

2023· review· en· W4362542214 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Komanchuk, Nicole Letourneau, Linda Duffett‐Leger, Judy L. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPsychologyHealth careDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parent/caregiver sensitivity and responsiveness are important for children's health and development. The "serve and return" metaphor was created to help providers and caregivers understand the importance of sensitive and responsive early caregiving. In this review, we explain the concept of "serve and return", outline historical and theoretical principles that culminated in this metaphor, highlight parent and child constructs associated with "serve and return" interactions, and synthesize literature on sensitive and responsive caregiving and children's health and developmental outcomes. Nurses and other healthcare professionals in public policy, clinical, community, education, and research roles need knowledge of "serve and return" interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207