Enhancing coparenting using video feedback: Consensus guidelines for infant and preschool families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective An International Coparenting Collaborative (ICC) was formed to develop consensus guidelines for incorporating a coparenting frame into clinical practice with families of infants and preschoolers. Background Historically, early childhood mental health practice has primarily focused on mother–child dyads. With growing evidence highlighting the impact of coparenting quality on infants' and preschoolers' mental health, practice innovations involving coparents and whole families have emerged. Method Lausanne Trilogue Play (LTP), a well‐established observational tool, can be used to assess coparenting and family interactions in very young families. Four evidence‐based coparenting dimensions—coparental engagement, teamwork, conflict, and child focus—are observable during an LTP and selected vignettes can be used to provide video feedback to coparents. Results Overarching principles to frame the filming of families playing in the LTP and to provide coparents with video feedback are outlined. A case example is included to illustrate the potential of this method. Conclusions This report contributes helpful guidelines for using LTP video feedback to enhance coparenting across diverse practice settings serving the infant and preschool population. Implications Consensus guidelines on observational methods that include coparents and other family members in early childhood mental health practice can help advance both clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".