A multiple case study of the children and families in the Infant Development Program of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative, retrospective study the experiences of a purposive sample of six families of developmentally at-risk children, between birth and school entry were examined. Children were followed up by consultants in the Infant Development Program of B.C. --a Provincial, early intervention, home-based, family-centred program serving families with developmentally at-risk children ages 0 - 3 years. Multiple sources of data collection were used including file reviews, focus groups, and individual, semi-structured interviews with participant parents. This researcher anticipated that it would be meaningful for parents to relate to these experiential issues; and that their responses would provide insights to the research questions posed on their specific experiences with early intervention. Member-checks were completed by participants throughout the data collection and coding stages. Thematic content analysis was used to interpret the themes from throughout the focus groups and interviews, followed by a rigorous process of inter-coder reliability. The findings of the present study raise issues in identification, referral and follow-up for developmentally at-risk children. The findings support the implementation of a primary level intervention system that probes and supports parents and service providers in identifying what are areas that need follow-up — and why and how to address those immediate needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".