MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116214445 · doi:10.1080/01942630802307101

Parental Experience of Home Adaptation for Children with Motor Disabilities

2008· article· en· W2116214445 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Roy, Jacqueline Rousseau, Héloïse Allard, Debbie Feldman, Annette Majnemer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill UniversityQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Focus groupPsychologyExploratory researchQualitative researchOccupational therapyIndependence (probability theory)Developmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home adaptation is essential in increasing independence of children with disabilities and reducing the burden of care for parents. Physical and occupational therapists involved in home adaptations are faced with various challenges in meeting the needs and expectations of parents. This study aimed at exploring the experience of parents throughout the home adaptation process. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study, whereby we interviewed a sample of 11 parents of children with motor disabilities, using focus groups and individual interviews. Dominant themes that emerged were financial and organizational constraints, child's independence/self-esteem, respect of temporal aspects, safety, respect for parent's roles, need for information, and appearance of the home. Parents wish physical and occupational therapists to take on roles that extend beyond provision of home adaptation, such as those of consultants and advocates.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207