Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study was grounded in a qualitative framework and used a focus group method to examine the meanings that individuals with disabilities (e.g., permanent mobility impairments, sensory impairments) attach to their experiences of stress, as well as major sources or causes of stress in these individuals' lives. Overall, the data showed that stress is an inherent and central part of everyday life for individuals with disabilities. The meanings attached to stress emphasized the personal anxiety and discomfort that affected, most often in negative ways, the participants' physical, psychological, emotional, and social functioning. Counterbalancing this negative focus, most of the participants agreed that stress could be a positive and constructive motivator for stimulating personal action and growth, bringing about positive life changes, enhancing personal awareness, and aiding in solving problems. Interpretation of the sources or causes of stress data produced two theme clusters. The individual theme cluster comprises (a) disability (i.e., added demands in daily living and the complications of disability and aging), (b) health, (c) interpersonal relationships, and (d) the inability to meet expectations. The systemic/ environmental cluster incorporates four sources of stress: (a) exclusionary social systems/ structures, (b) physical accessibility, (c) employment accessibility, and (d) economic marginality. In an effort to integrate these distinct yet interrelated themes, an emergent model is proposed in which social exclusion is used as the overarching conceptual framework for understanding the findings specific to sources or causes of stress. Implications of the findings for rehabilitation counseling for individuals with disabilities also are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".