Intérêt de l’accompagnement parental dans les troubles alimentaires pédiatriques : création d’un protocole d’accompagnement parental basé sur les interactions familiales et la manipulation de l’aliment en tant qu’objet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our societies, mealtimes are one of the main components of family unity, and they imply warm and sharing moments. However, the ability to feed is a complex function implying psychosocial, behavioral, affective, cognitive and sensorimotor factors. When feeding becomes difficult and feeding patterns are troubled, the child’s environment can result in being off balance. Parent-child interactions change and become disturbed, during mealtime and playtime. Therefore, we wanted to offer parents of children with Pediatric Feeding Disorder a parental support around the theme of family interactions. Furthermore, recent studies about the child’s cognitive development have proven the importance of object understanding and knowledge, which grows with the child’s ability to explore and interact with objects. Therefore, throughout our protocol we also wanted to offer children with Pediatric Feeding Disorder an opportunity to explore food as an object, with different shapes and textures. A 12-sessions experimental protocol has been offered to the families of 3 patients with Pediatric Feeding Disorder, despite their differences. In order to establish the effect of our protocol, we used a Food Preference Inventory created specifically for our study, as well as the Feeding Scale from the Montreal Children Hospital (Ramsay et al., 2011). Our protocol has allowed us to notice an increase in food variety and a decrease in the negative consequences of the Pediatric Feeding Disorder on family interactions
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 | 0.065 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".