Evaluating early coparenting using the Lausanne Trilogue Play observational procedure: Guidance for infant–family practitioners from an international coparenting collaborative.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the early 1990s, coparenting - a conceptual framework connecting clinical insights from structural family therapy to theory and research on development of infants and toddlers within relationship systems - has brought new perspective to family and developmental science while hinting at ramifications for clinical practice. Coparenting theory and research evolved side-by-side with careful, intensive study of mother-father-child triangular relationships in families with very young children, work that expanded in recent years to include studies of other coparent-child triangular systems, such as those involving mothers, grandmothers, and infants. Until now, however, there has been no coordinated expert guidance for bringing concepts expounded in research studies of coparenting and triangular relationships to practitioners who work in infant-family mental health and family therapy contexts. In 2022, a Collaborative of family-oriented infant mental health experts from seven countries, all bringing proficiency in assessing and working with coparenting and triangular family dynamics in research or clinical settings, organized to review and identify common agreed-upon behavioral manifestations of coparenting during triangular interactions. Recognizing four central dimensions capturing how coparents and children organize when interacting together as a triangular system (engagement, teamwork, conflict, and child focus), the International Coparenting Collaborative (ICC) explains in this report how a standardized observational assessment, the Lausanne Trilogue Play (or LTP) can be used to identify coparenting strengths and challenges and elevate practitioners' attunement to coparenting dynamics within their therapeutic contexts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".