Embracing autism in <scp>C</scp>anadian rural communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experience of Canadian parents living in rural areas who were parenting a child with autism. DESIGN: A phenomenological design described by van Manen was applied to guide this study. SETTING: This study took place in rural communities of Western Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 26 families parenting a child with autism in rural communities. Participants ranged in age from 26 to 50 years old and lived an average of 197 kilometres away from an urban city. INTERVENTIONS: Parents of children with autism took part in audio-taped, in-depth interviews. A total of 26 open-ended interviews were completed over four months with an average of 83 minutes per interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using van Manen's selective highlighting approach. RESULTS: When describing the characteristics of living rurally while parenting a child with autism, parents reported that the rural community had (i) less of everything, (ii) safety and familiarity, and (iii) a family of support. Parents believed that although there were disadvantages to living in a rural community, parents felt isolated in terms of services but not in terms of the support received by the community. CONCLUSION: The results of this study add to our knowledge of parenting experiences with attention to the rural experience and furthermore, recommendations for nurses and health care professionals were provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".