MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005075761 · doi:10.3109/01612840.2012.699163

Drawing the Line: A Case Study of Ambivalence in Sibling Support for Adults with Complex Needs

2012· article· en· W2005075761 on OpenAlexafffund
Bonnie Lashewicz, Amanda Lo, Laura Mooney, Hina Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAmbivalenceBrotherSisterSiblingPsychologySocial supportMental healthSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to illuminate the dynamics of sibling group support when one sibling has complex needs accompanied by difficult behaviors. A case study of sibling support for a twenty-year-old woman with a disability, a mental health issue, and addictions, drawn from the perspectives of her full brother, her half-brother, and their mother, is presented. The brothers express ambivalence between devotion to supporting their sister and limits to the support they feel able to provide. The limits the brothers place on their support allow them to adhere to their values, preserve their energy and, ultimately, sustain their ability to provide support.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.377 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207