MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015851894 · doi:10.1080/01460860600846867

Factors Affecting Parenting Stress Among Biologically Vulnerable Toddlers

2006· article· en· W2015851894 on OpenAlex
M. Loretta Secco, Debbie Fraser Askin, C. T. Yu, Jennifer Garinger, Carole Mulaire-Cloutier, Lisa Scharf, Lisa H. Schwartzman, Debra Konyk, Maurice A. Feldman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversitySt.AmantUniversity of ManitobaCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite carePsychologyPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyCompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyCognitionMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parenting a child with, or at risk for, a developmental delay or disability can be stressful. Abidin's parenting stress model was used as a framework to examine how several maternal, child, and family factors predict parent stress outcomes. Stepwise regression models revealed that maternal and child factors were significant contributors to parenting stress. However, family factors (income and family functioning) were not retained. Parenting stress was lower when child (cognitive and adaptive ability) and maternal (depression and child care competence) characteristics were more positive. Child cognitive ability was a strong contributor to total parenting stress and two parenting stress subscales. Findings suggest that these parents need stress lowering interventions such as supportive child care, respite relief, and a child behaviour-focused program.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.311 · 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