MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059887899 · doi:10.1300/j006v21n04_02

A Qualitative Study of the Transition to Adulthood for Youth with Physical Disabilities

2002· article· en· W2059887899 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debra Stewart, Mary Law, Peter Rosenbaum, Dennis Willms

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupQualitative researchPsychologyContext (archaeology)Independent livingTransition (genetics)Physical disabilityPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyYoung adultMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences, perceptions, and needs of youth with physical disabilities in transition from adolescence to adulthood. Purposeful sampling strategies were used to select 34 study participants who lived in three regions of south-central Ontario, Canada. Data collection methods were individual and focus group interviews, and were guided by a set of open-ended questions. An editing style of analysis sorted the text into codes for description and interpretation. Themes emerged about context, the transition process, needs, and services. Participants identified a poor fit between young persons with disabilities and the adult world they were entering. They recommended that services be focused on environmental supports to enable them to "build their own bridges" to the adult world. Community-based transition services need to be planned in collaboration with youth with disabilities and their parents. Concepts of person-environment fit and health promotion can be incorporated into services to enable young persons with disabilities to experience a smooth transition from adolescence to adulthood.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations86
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207