MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070501342 · doi:10.1080/02699050600743725

Predictors of family system functioning after brain injury

2006· article· en· W2070501342 on OpenAlexaff
Caron Gan, Kent A. Campbell, Monica Gemeinhardt, Gerald T. McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquired brain injuryPsychologyNeuropsychologyClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Social supportDistressDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryRehabilitationCognitionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of family system functioning after acquired brain injury (ABI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective design. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Data on ABI-related impairments, level of awareness, neuropsychological functioning, caregiver strain and family system functioning were extracted from the files of 66 individuals with ABI and 148 family members who had enrolled in a community-based support programme. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Individuals with ABI, mothers, spouses, siblings and the family as a unit reported significant distress in family functioning compared to the norm. Higher caregiver strain and client gender (i.e. female) were predictive of poorer family system functioning. Neither ABI impairments nor neuropsychological variables were correlated with family functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of ABI extend beyond the injured person and primary caregiver. The need for a family systems approach to family intervention after ABI is supported. Implications for practice and future research 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations138
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207