MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103672574 · doi:10.1111/bld.12113

Support to parents with cognitive limitations: parental abilities and social participation

2014· article· en· W2103672574 on OpenAlexaff
Élise Milot, Daniel Turcotte, Sylvie Tétreault

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Learning Disabilities · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyCognitive disabilitiesDevelopmental psychologySocial supportExploratory researchApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessible summary Some adults with cognitive limitations choose to become parents. Parents with cognitive limitations can receive support to help them meet a child's needs. Different types of support exist such as educational support. The aim of this study was to explore the different types of support that parents with cognitive limitations might need. Summary In several countries, a growing number of adults with cognitive limitations decide to become parents. However, exercising this right requires the implementation of measures and services that foster their ability to assume parental responsibilities. This study presents results collected in an exploratory study documenting the type of support parents with cognitive limitations may need to play their parental role efficiently and be active members of their community. Data come from semi‐structured interviews conducted with 27 professionals and 9 parents with cognitive limitations. Nine types of support were identified from the data collected. Some issues associated with the delivery of such supports 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207