Illustrating Risk: Anaphylaxis Through the Eyes of the Food‐Allergic Child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk perception research is widely focused on children as targets of risk. To date, very few studies have consulted with the impacted group to assess the perceptions of risk associated with the exposures of interest. Much less research has investigated the experiences of children at risk for anaphylaxis, their concerns, and the psychosocial stresses associated with risk. The present study explores the perceptions and experiences of Ontario students with anaphylaxis, and their parents regarding school as a safe place in order to inform school policy around risk management and coping. A "child-centered" analytical framework incorporating illustrative techniques within interpretative analysis is outlined. Five prominent themes: (a) social and environmental barriers to safety, (b) coping strategies, (c) emotional burden of responsibility, (d) balance of responsibility (transitions), and (e) redefining "normal" are discussed. Results found that "child-centered" techniques empowered children in a process that is meaningful and relevant to their lives. A preliminary framework for understanding what risk means to children highlighted the differences in how they cope in the public sphere of school.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".