MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bowlby and Robertson Revisited

2006· article· en· W1991004111 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Koller, David Nicholas, R. Salter Goldie, Robin E. Gearing, Enid K. Selkirk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialIsolation (microbiology)Social isolationQualitative researchHealth carePsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyNursingPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychosocial issues related to pediatric isolation remain relevant to both clinical practice and research. The early theories of Bowlby and Robertson are central to this discussion for it was predominantly their work that elicited several policy changes aimed at improving psychosocial care in pediatric settings. Recognizing the significant effects of isolating hospitalized children is just as relevant today where serious infectious diseases can lead to separation of family members. An ethnographic, qualitative study examined the experiences and perspectives of children hospitalized because of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), their parents, and pediatric health care providers. The sample included 23 participants: five children, 10 parents, and eight health care providers. Data analyses illuminated a range of perceived experiences for this triadic sample. Themes related to the effects of social isolation on children were predominant. They included emotional upheaval, changes in parental and professional roles, and familial experiences following hospital discharge. Finally, the paper draws on the findings of the present study and other recent work in offering recommendations for effective clinical approaches in the event of future outbreaks.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.033
Scholarly communication0.0100.018
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0210.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental & Behavioral PediatricsSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207