MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154684572 · doi:10.1017/s0012162201000858

Are families with adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy the same as other families?

2001· article· en· W2154684572 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce Magill‐Evans, Kerrie Pain, Robin Adkins, Marianne Kratochvil

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyYoung adultClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) and their families to adolescents without physical disabilities and their families as the child enters and leaves adolescence (age ranges 13 to 15 years and 19 to 23 years). Families of 90 individuals with CP (42 females, 48 males) and 75 individuals without physical disabilities (34 females, 41 males) participated. They completed the Family Assessment Device, Life Situation Survey, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and Future Questionnaire. There were few differences in family functioning, life satisfaction, or perceived social support between the groups. Expectations of young adults with CP and parents of both adolescents and young adults regarding future independence and success were lower than the expectations of the control group. While the group results emphasize similarities between families during the two stages of adolescence, individual families and individual family members report specific challenges.

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)0.006
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207