MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150046371 · doi:10.1177/0022219408317860

Parents and Youth With Learning Disabilities

2008· article· en· W2150046371 on OpenAlexaff
Tali Heiman, Lana C. Zinck, Nancy L. Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOpenness to experienceDevelopmental psychologyLearning disabilityPerceptionClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined perceptions of family relationships and communication in 52 families who have an adolescent child diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD) with a matched group of 52 families who have a child without LD. Parents and youth completed a self-reported Family Relations and Communication Scales assessment. Findings revealed parents perceived their child as either overinvolved or underinvolved with their parents and not sharing the same values and norms as their parents. Findings indicated that parents of youth with and without LD share similar perceptions of both the openness and problematic aspects of family communication. Youth with and without LD reported higher levels of problematic maternal involvement than perceived by the mothers; youth without LD rated their mothers' affective expression higher than reported by their mothers; both groups of youth perceived their mothers' and their fathers' communication as less open and more problematic than reported by their parents.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207