MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of entry to community‐based services for families with children with developmental disabilities: implications for social work practice

2008· article· en· W1971644852 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diane Hiebert‐Murphy, Barry Trute, Alexandra Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueChild & Family Social Work · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyService (business)Social workIdentification (biology)Qualitative researchPsychologySocial WelfareDevelopmental psychologySociologyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The purpose of the present study was to understand, from parents' perspectives, the process of entry to community‐based services for children with developmental disabilities and to explore the relationship between patterns of entry and parent‐reported needs and priorities for service. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 43 mothers and 29 fathers of children with developmental disabilities approximately 6 months after the families entered community‐based childhood disability support services in Manitoba, Canada. Analysis of the coded interview data resulted in the identification of three process factors influential in the entry of families to community‐based support services: recognition of problems in child development, formal diagnosis of child disability and linkage between diagnostic services and the community‐based support system. Analysis of these processes identified four patterns of service entry associated with differing family needs for service: early entry, prompt entry, delayed entry and atypical entry. The results can be understood as a typology useful for social workers in the assessment of family needs and priorities at the point of entry to community‐based services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild & Family Social WorkSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207