MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505868510 · doi:10.1111/fare.12047

Relationship Quality in Adult Siblings with and without Developmental Disabilities

2014· article· en· W1505868510 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Relations · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreLibrary and Archives CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiblingClosenessSibling relationshipPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyFeelingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors' first study compared participants' relationships between their siblings with and without a developmental disability ( DD ) and examined the effect of gender on sibling relationships. The second study explored how adults with a DD perceived their sibling relationships. Adults (n = 128) who had a sibling with and without a DD completed questionnaires about relationship closeness and contact. Participants reported more in‐person and telephone contact with siblings with a DD and more positive feelings about the sibling relationship. Gender was not related to the relationship with a sibling with a DD , whereas sisters reported closer relationships and more contact with sisters without a DD as compared to brothers without a DD . Seventeen adults with a DD also completed interviews about shared activities, contact, and sibling support. Participants indicated a desire to spend more time with siblings and reported that they provided support to and received support from their siblings .

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.292 · 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