Social Support for Parents of Deaf Children: Moving Toward Contextualized Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of claims that social support needs to be defined within specific context, we conducted a metasynthesis to identify ways that social support has been studied and contextualized in research focused on hearing parents of children with hearing loss. A literature search of published articles was conducted to identify research studies related to support and hearing parents of children with hearing loss. Our search yielded 108 items from Psycinfo and 154 items from Web of Science; 26 studies met our inclusion criteria. Our analyses involved summary and integration of information regarding research methods, guiding theoretical frameworks, and findings in relation to diverse support contexts. We found that it is the multidimensionality of social support and its specific functions, individually and in combination, that are particularly relevant in informing family-centered service provision. Further understanding of the multidimensional and dynamic nature of support could occur through investigation of diverse functions of support within and across ecological contexts. Findings from this study contributed to a descriptive framework that can be used to explore the multidimensionality of support; facilitate use of methods that assess specific support functions; and also inform the development of interventions that are responsive and match the needs of 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".