MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170219395 · doi:10.1177/1049732310375248

Outside Looking In: The Lived Experience of Adults With Prematurely Born Siblings

2010· article· en· W2170219395 on OpenAlexafffund
Barbara J. Gaal, Janet Pinelli, Dauna Crooks, Saroj Saigal, David L. Streiner, Michael Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLived experiencePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Siblings have unique relationships; however, not all sibling relationships are typical. In North America, the preterm birth rate ranks second only to Africa in a global climate of rising preterm birth rates. A paucity of literature exists for sibling relationships when one sibling is born prematurely. In this hermeneutic phenomenological study, we explored the lived experience of adult siblings with prematurely born, young adult brothers and sisters who subsequently developed disabilities. The 28 siblings, interviewed with open-ended questions, represented 47 families with extremely-low-birth-weight young adults with neurodevelopmental disabilities born between 1977 and 1982. Existential reflection guided by van Manen's human science approach assisted the analysis of tape-recorded conversations. A structure of meaning entitled "outside looking in" emerged to illustrate the extraordinary relationships forged by the adult siblings with their brothers and sisters throughout their years together.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207