MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1822245022 · doi:10.7202/1028215ar

Différences entre les niveaux de stress de parents d’enfants ayant ou non une DI ou un TSA

2014· article· fr· W1822245022 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Diane Morin, Laurence De Mondehare, Julie Maltais, Isabelle Picard, Mélissa Moscato, Marc J. Tassé

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue francophone de la déficience intellectuelle · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsCegep regional de LanaudiereUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contexte. Les parents d’enfants ayant une DI ou un TSA rapportent généralement un stress plus élevé que les parents d’enfants à développement typique, ce qu’on a peu étudié au Québec. Méthode. Quatre groupes de 144 parents (ayant un enfant sans DI ni TSA; avec DI; avec TSA; avec DI et TSA) ont complété des mesures de stress parental, de soutien social et rapporté des informations concernant leur enfant. Résultats. Les analyses de variance et des contrastes prévus indiquent que les parents du groupe DI-TSA obtiennent les plus hauts niveaux de stress. Par ordre décroissant, viennent ensuite les groupes TSA, DI, et sans DI ou TSA. Les enfants du groupe DI-TSA présentent plus de comportements problématiques, de moins bonnes habiletés adaptatives et moins d’habiletés sociales. Leurs parents sont ceux qui reçoivent plus de soutien, mais également ceux qui en sont les moins satisfaits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue francophone de la déficience intellectuelleSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207