MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116042622 · doi:10.1093/sw/46.2.159

Challenges of Parenting for Families Living with HIV/AIDS

2001· review· en· W2116042622 on OpenAlexaffabout
Beverley J. Antle, Lilian M. Wells, R. Salter Goldie, Dale Dematteo, Susan King

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologySecrecyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the continual rise of HIV infection in our communities and the improved life span for many who are HIV-positive, social workers in all fields of practice have clients whose lives have been touched by HIV/AIDS. This article reviews relevant literature and reports on the parenting needs that emerged in a Canadian study that examined the experiences of 105 mothers and fathers living with HIV/AIDS. The majority of the children in the study were not HIV-positive. Some themes related to parenting in the literature, and evident in this study, were chronic sorrow, stress and burden, normalization, stigma, secrecy, and disclosure. In the study parenting was found to be a source of joy and an additional challenge in an already complicated life. Important new themes were family life as precious time, focused parenting, the different effects of HIV/AIDS, the parenting preparation needs of fathers, and the efforts to parent affected and infected children differently. Parenting when living with HIV/AIDS requires attention from clinicians and researchers in a range of settings.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial WorkSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207