Living with Difference: Experiences of Adolescent Girls with Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the experiences of adolescent girls with cleft lip and palate who were preparing for orthognathic surgery. DESIGN: A qualitative study, based on a phenomenological approach, explored adolescents' experiences. Two 1-hour semistructured interviews were conducted before surgery, and member checking was employed to verify findings with each participant. SETTING: A tertiary care pediatric hospital in central Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A criterion sampling technique was used to recruit a sample of seven participants with cleft lip and palate ranging in age from 15 to 20 years who were scheduled for cleft orthognathic surgery. RESULTS: PARTICIPANTS described experiencing teasing, bullying, and stares. In many cases, participants sought to resist and dismiss negative social attitudes about their visible difference while working to combat this with a positive view of who they really are. To varying degrees, participants felt constricted in engaging in the community as they were worried what others thought of their visible difference. They worked at finding ways to reduce the impact of social stigma through coping strategies, social supports, and reconstructive surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent girls can experience strain associated with living with a facial difference; however, they find strategies to cope with the perception of difference. Reconstructive surgery is viewed as a means to increase confidence. Further intervention is needed in understanding and addressing stigma and fostering resiliency related to female adolescents living with a facial difference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".