MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2597403148 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.36.1.153

CONNORS, Clare and Kirsten STALKER, <b>THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND THEIR SIBLINGS: A Positive Outlook</b>

2005· article· en· W2597403148 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcie Parker

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGender studiesSociologySocial psychologyPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

CONNORS, Clare and Kirsten STALKER, THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND THEIR SIBLINGS: A Positive Outlook. Independence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routeledge, 2003, 187 pp., $24.95 softcover.This short book, set in Great Britain, looks at how children living with disability and their siblings feel about the disability and how it has changed or not changed their lives. It begins with a short glossary of key terms. The authors point out that ... .. disability is rooted in an unequal social relationship, the effects of which can manifest themselves as barriers-physical, social and emotional-restricting the lives of disabled people. [p. 103] Chapters include the policy and research background, methods and conducting the research, children negotiating day-to-day life at home and at school, services and professionals, brothers and sisters, and children's understanding of their disability. Also included with the book are references and a number of very helpful appendices showing which consent forms were provided for various age levels and for siblings to sign as well as a guide for questions used to elicit information from the disabled children and the siblings about family life, school life, and how to relate to professional providers.The authors wisely used qualitative research methods to approach this topic. Qualitative approaches are being more and more widely used in disability studies because they allow those being researched to be involved in all stages of the study, the approaches acknowledge them the experts and the researchers the learners, and qualitative approaches improve the quality of the research and the results when those who are disabled and their families are involved throughout the research process.The children in this study speak movingly of their relationship with their parents and with their siblings, as well as their classmates and with children and adults in the wider public. Much of what is described by disabled children, the ups and downs, the bullying, the closeness, would be the same for any sibling relationship. These researchers also found that the older the children became, the fewer activities there were for them to join; furthermore, as the children grew older, physical barriers to their activities and their interests became more apparent. Like children almost everywhere, these children reported enjoying life, being good at activities and having close family, sibling and friendships. While most sibling relationships were in the normal range and siblings got along well together, there were a few reports of bitter and sometimes violent relationships with sibs.On the negative side, they reported difficulties with socially imposed restrictions on their chosen activities. These included inaccessible buildings and transportation systems and a lack of appropriate support for communication. The children were quite positive about their experience with their teachers, who often function as an important parental figure. When they discussed their assistants and attendants, their feelings were much more complex and ambivalent, with attendants put into at least five categories, including the replaceable assistant, the assistant as mother or father, the professional assistant, the assistant as friend or buddy, and their ideal assistant. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,064
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,128

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,004
Communication savante0,0060,011
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0200,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,129
Tête enseignante GPT0,443
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207