Parental Cognitive Impairment, Mental Health, and Child Outcomes in a Child Protection Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents with cognitive impairments (CI) are overrepresented in child custody cases and their children are at risk for adverse outcomes. Ecological-transactional researchers propose that child outcomes are a function of the interaction of multiple distal, intermediate, and proximal risk and resilience factors. This study tested the fit of, and hypotheses from, an interactional model proposed by Feldman (2002 Feldman, M. A. 2002. “Parents with intellectual disabilities and their children: Impediments and supports”. In Ethical dilemmas: Sexuality and developmental disability, Edited by: Griffiths, D. and Federoff, P. 255–292. Kingston, NY: NADD Press. [Google Scholar]) in a child protection sample of parents with CI (Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect [Trocmé et al., 2003]). We found a range of child outcomes, with many children without problems. Different child outcomes were associated with different types of alleged abuse. Low parental social support and mental health issues predicted child functioning, with parental mental health mediating the relationship between social support and child outcome. Findings support an interactional view of families with parents with CI and suggest the need for comprehensive, ecologically-based family interventions to promote parent and child well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".