MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056127892 · doi:10.1080/10522158.2011.552404

Parents' Definition of Effective Child Disability Support Services: Implications for Implementing Family-Centered Practice

2011· article· en· W2056127892 on OpenAlexafffund
Diane Hiebert‐Murphy, Barry Trute, Alexandra Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Social Work · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsService delivery frameworkService (business)PsychologyQualitative researchInterpersonal communicationService systemMedical educationNursingMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined parents' perspectives of services within a community-based childhood disability program in the process of enhancing the family centeredness of its services. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 mothers and 22 fathers approximately 18 months after entering the service delivery system. Parents reported that effective service delivery requires service coordinators with interpersonal and practice skills working within an adequately resourced service system that has policies and procedures that are responsive to family needs. Parent feedback was congruent with the principles of family-centered practice and has important implications for the implementation of family-centered services.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Social WorkSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207