MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479846071 · doi:10.1111/ajr.12030

Embracing autism in <scp>C</scp>anadian rural communities

2013· article· en· W1479846071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsey Hoogsteen, Roberta L. Woodgate

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismNonprobability samplingLived experienceRural communityPsychologyRural areaNursingMedicineDevelopmental psychologySociologyEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207