Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infancy is an ideal time to engage parents in foundational sleep health promotion, as many parents have concerns about infant sleep. However, recent work suggests most Canadian public health resources on infant sleep does not meet clear communication criteria and that these resources often only focus on sleep safety, rather than broader sleep health. Information is also limited with respect to how parents can manage infant sleep difficulties. While eHealth intervention programs can increase the accessibility of evidence-based pediatric sleep health information, recent parental feedback indicates that usability, personalization, and flexibility are key factors in facilitating use. Additional co-design workshops with care providers and parents provided critical guidance on the need to develop more inclusive infant sleep interventions, consistent with previous literature. This guidance suggests infant sleep interventions should be culturally humble and non-judgmental, inclusive of parenting partners, and provide credible, timely, and meaningful information.
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 | 0.033 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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".