Home Participation of Infants With and Without Biological Risk in the First Year of Life: A Cross-Sectional and Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To compare caregiver-reported current and desired home participation of infants with and without biological risk in the first year of life.Method Observational, cross-sectional and comparative study. Caregivers of 48 infants with (mean corrected age = 5.6(±2.3) months) and 32 without (mean corrected age = 5.8(±1.9) months) biological risk completed the Young Children’s Participation and Environment Measure home section. Caregivers reported on their infant’s current participation (frequency and involvement) in 13 activities within the domains of basic care routines, household chores, interactive and organized play, and socializing with friends and family, as well as their desire for change(s) in their infant’s home participation. We compared groups using comparative tests (Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons; p < 0.0125).Results Infants with biological risk participated less frequently in the domain household chores (U = 383.000; p < 0.001); and were less involved in the domain household chores (U = 407.000; p < 0.001). No significant group differences were found in desire for change.Conclusion Results suggest that home participation restriction can be identified for infants with biological risk in one out of four domains, which may allow health professionals to develop strategies to intervene early in the participation of children at risk in this specific area of household chores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".