MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049063475 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2010.540311

“If I Knew Then What I Know Now”: Parents’ Reflections on Raising a Child with Cerebral Palsy

2010· article· en· W2049063475 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Reid, Heather Imrie, Emily Brouwer, Shannon Clutton, Jan Evans, Diane Russell, Doreen J. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityThames Valley Children's CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychologyPhoneFamily centered careHealth careHealth professionalsMedicineDevelopmental psychologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we investigated experiences of parents of children with cerebral palsy (CP) to identify areas in which health care providers and educators could improve practice. A second objective was to create educational material for parents of young children newly diagnosed with CP. A purposive sample of nine parents, who previously participated in the Adolescent Study of Quality of Life, Mobility, and Exercise, was recruited through phone. During an interview, parents reflected on the experience of raising a child with CP from birth to young adulthood. These interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-informed model and analyzed to identify major themes. Parents elaborated upon what was helpful and what could be changed to improve their children's and families' experiences through supports, advocacy, and education at different levels. The results informed the development of tips for parents and children with CP to enhance their families' experiences and interactions with health care providers, educators, and others.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207