MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130714201 · doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2013.07.016

Family hardiness, social support, and self-efficacy in mothers of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders

2013· article· en· W2130714201 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan A. Weiss, Suzanne Robinson, Stephanie Fung, Ami Tint, Philip Chalmers, Yona Lunsky

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in autism spectrum disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaOntario Mental Health FoundationSinneave Family FoundationAutism Speaks
KeywordsPsychologyStressorHardiness (plants)DistressSocial supportCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySelf-efficacySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family hardiness is an important construct to understand coping in parents of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), who are often at risk for considerable distress in the face of multiple stressors. The current study examined family hardiness, perceived social support and parent self-efficacy as predictors of family distress in 138 mothers of individuals with ASD, 4–41 years of age. Using a multiple mediation analysis, we demonstrated that perceived self-efficacy and social support mediated the link between the pile-up of stressors and family hardiness, and that hardiness was a partial mediator in explaining how stressors were associated with family distress. Researchers and clinicians should consider the role that perceived social support and parent self-efficacy play in explaining family hardiness, and how the perception of such hardiness is associated with less distress.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations143
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in autism spectrum disordersSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207