MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332252148 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsw001

From Knowing Nothing to Knowing What, How and Now: Parents’ Experiences of Caring for their Children With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: Table I.

2016· article· en· W2332252148 on OpenAlexaff
Tove Lundberg, Anders Lindström, Katrina Roen, Peter Hegarty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
FundersUniversity College LondonCreighton University
KeywordsCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchPsychologyNothingMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study investigates various kinds of knowing that European parents use when caring for their children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 parents of 22 children with CAH. Results: Parents emphasized the importance of knowing what CAH is and what support their child needs, but also knowing how to cope and make sense of the new situation, how to attend to their child's medical needs as well as how to talk to their child. Parents also reported challenges related to connecting with their social network, experiences of emergency care, and how to help their children become independent. These challenges require knowing now : being able to respond appropriately to unique circumstances. Conclusions: Parents experience diverse challenges that may moderate the effects of the diagnosis on children's well-being. Parenting children with CAH requires the development of knowing that goes beyond medical information.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207