MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491567308 · doi:10.1111/jar.12204

Support Needs of Fathers of Children with <scp>ASD</scp>: Individual, Family, Community and Ideological Influences

2015· article· en· W1491567308 on OpenAlexafffund
Kassi Shave, Bonnie Lashewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaAlberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyImmediacyValue (mathematics)IdeologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Fathers are increasingly involved in caring for children, and involvement by fathers of children with ASD is distinctly impacted by added demands of their child's diagnosis. Yet supports for families of children with ASD are not tailored to needs of fathers. We use an ecological framework to examine how fathers' needs are influenced by contexts ranging from the immediacy of their child's behaviour to overarching expectations for good fathering. METHODS: We thematically analyse data from semi-structured interviews with 28 fathers of children with ASD who shared parenting stories of navigating their immediate and broader environments. FINDINGS: Fathers are responsive and reflective in their parenting and value recreationally based support activities that include their children. Fathers endorse father-to-father support and are interested in mentoring fathers newer to the experience of having a child with ASD. CONCLUSIONS: Fathers are resourceful parents who compel a critical re-examination towards advances in father-friendly practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207