MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115457369 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enm051

Parental Involvement in the Habilitation Process Following Children's Cochlear Implantation: An Action Theory Perspective

2007· article· en· W2115457369 on OpenAlexaff
Anat Zaidman‐Zait, R. A. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabilitationPsychologyAction (physics)Meaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Process (computing)Developmental psychologyCochlear implantationIntentionalityAction theory (sociology)Cochlear implantPsychotherapistEpistemologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Action theory and the qualitative action-project method are used in this study to address and illustrate the complexity of parenting children who have received cochlear implants (CIs) as well as the intentionality of parents engaged in that process. "Action" refers to individual and joint goal-directed and intentional behaviors. Action theory has the advantage of using the perspectives provided by manifest behavior, internal processes, and social meaning in the analysis of action. Two cases are used to describe the individual and joint actions and projects, as related to parents' involvement in the habilitation process of children's postcochlear implantation. These joint projects are described at the levels of meanings/goals, functional processes, behaviors, structural support, and resources. From the rich descriptions and analysis of the cases, we draw potentially illuminative implications for the "current thinking" in relation to parenting children with CIs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207