A critical incidents study : the process of differentiation within the family of procreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate what facilitates and hinders the process of differentiation of parents within their family of procreation. Participants of this study were involved in a parenting workshop which was based upon Bowen's Family System Theory and his concept of differentiation. Using a critical incidents approach, participants completed daily logs of their experiences from which a category system detailing the process of differentiation was created. The category system suggests both the criteria for facilitating successful differentiation and the opposing criteria for hindering successful differentiation. A review of the literature revealed that no prior research of this nature has been conducted. As well, the literature also revealed that very little use has been made of Family System's Theory in terms of parenting programs. The dearth of literature suggests that more research is required in applying Family System’s Theory to programmatic attempts at helping families adjust over their developmental lifespan. The research suggested that criteria for successfully facilitating the process towards greater differentiation involved behaviours indicating: Being Responsible, Acceptance of Difference, Control of Anxiety, Awareness of Triangles, Awareness of Self, and Fostering Connection.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".