MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410501392 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf090.1063

1063 Parents vs. Childcare Workers: Napping Beliefs Across Ages 1 to 5

2025· article· en· W4410501392 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Pétrin, Marie‐Hélène Pennestri, Geneviève Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Sleep beliefs are critical drivers of children’s sleep practices; however, research has predominantly focused on nocturnal sleep. Little is known about beliefs surrounding napping, especially during the preschool years when children gradually transition from regular napping to its cessation. Since most preschoolers attend childcare, understanding how parents’ and childcare workers’ napping beliefs align or diverge can provide valuable insights into how these perspectives may influence children’s sleep health. This study examined the differences in napping beliefs between parents and childcare workers, focusing on how they vary according to children’s age. Methods An anonymous online survey was conducted in Quebec from June to December 2024. Participants included 925 parents of children aged 1-5 years and 1,069 childcare workers caring for preschoolers. Both groups completed an adapted version of the Nap Beliefs Scale, which assessed positive (favorable) and negative (unfavorable) beliefs about napping across four age brackets (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 years). A MANOVA was performed to compare napping beliefs between parents and childcare workers across the four age categories, followed by univariate ANOVAs to examine group-specific differences in napping beliefs by age and belief type. Results Results showed a significant multivariate effect of Group on Napping belief scores (Pillai’s Trace = 0.14, F(8, 1985) = 41.05, p <.001). Childcare workers had significantly more positive beliefs compared to parents for children aged 3-4 (F(1, 1992) = 44.97, p <.001) and 4-5 years (F(1, 1992) = 112.59, p <.001). In parallel, parents reported significantly higher negative beliefs than childcare workers for children aged 2-3 (F(1, 1992) = 53.98, p <.001), 3-4 (F(1, 1992) = 176.25, p <.001), and 4-5 years (F(1, 1992) = 201.43, p <.001). Conclusion Findings suggest that parents and childcare workers hold distinct beliefs about napping, particularly for older preschoolers. While childcare workers tend to view napping as beneficial across all ages, parents may perceive napping for older children more negatively than younger children. This highlights the importance of fostering dialogue and evidence-based education to bridge the gap between these viewpoints and promote sleep practices that support children’s development needs. Support (if any) This project was funded by the SSHRC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207