MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081562891 · doi:10.1177/0883073814533009

Family-Centered Care for Children With Cerebral Palsy

2014· article· en· W2081562891 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian King, Lisa A. Chiarello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyFamily centered careMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on conceptual and practical considerations in family-centered care for children with cerebral palsy and their families. In the last 5 years, there have been important advances in our understanding of the components of family-centered care, and initial attempts to understand the client change processes at play. Recent research elaborates on family-centered care by delving into aspects of family-provider partnership, and applying family-centered principles to organizational service delivery to bring about organizational cultures of family-centered care. Recent research has also begun to consider mediators of client change, and new practice models have been proposed that embrace family-centered principles and illustrate the "art" of practice. Future research directions are discussed, including explorations of causal relationships between family-centered care principles, elements of caregiving practice, client change processes, and child and family outcomes. The meaning of the recent literature for pediatric neurology practice is considered.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations210
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207