MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current and Future Concerns of Older Parents of Sons and Daughters With Intellectual Disabilities

2009· article· en· W2130140202 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityPsychologyCurrent (fluid)GerontologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly greater numbers of older parents are providing care at home for their sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities. As attention needs to be paid to the supports needed by such families to assist them with their caregiving activities, it is prudent to identify the types of supports that will be needed when the parents are no longer able to provide care. Working with a cohort of older parent carers in Prince Edward Island, Canada, the authors undertook to examine older carer concerns and planning issues. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the key issues that older parents of sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities are currently facing and their preferences for care in the future, the authors initiated a population‐case‐finding process, undertook pilot interviews with a sample, and then used the resultant qualitative data to form the quantitative component of the study. Of 132 identified families in the province, 10 parents voluntarily participated in pilot interviews, and 33 parents agreed to complete in‐depth interviews. Analysis of qualitative data resulted in the following five themes: (1) worry about the future care of son or daughter; (2) concern about services funding; (3) having housing and care options; (4) lack of provider understanding of carer's needs; and (5) helping son or daughter become a productive and active member of society. Key issues identified through quantitative analysis included interactions with the government, the need for respite care, and meeting social and emotional needs. Preferred types of housing and care options included “small option homes” and services that provide care to both older parents and their sons and daughters. The authors' results emphasize the necessity of adequate supports being made available to older parents who wish to support their sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities at home and to ensure that desired supports are available in the future when they are no longer able to provide care.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.356 · 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