MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521502557 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.13237

Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability

2016· review· en· W2521502557 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Imms, Mats Granlund, Peter H. Wilson, Bert Steenbergen, Peter Rosenbaum, Andrew M. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Perspective (graphical)Intervention (counseling)Conceptual frameworkPsychologyCategorical variableDevelopmental psychologyConceptual modelGerontologyApplied psychologyMedicineSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review outlines a conceptual approach to inform research and practice aimed at supporting children whose lives are complicated by impairment and/or chronic medical conditions, and their families. 'Participation' in meaningful life activities should be an essential intervention goal, to meet the challenges of healthy growth and development, and to provide opportunities to help ensure that young people with impairments reach their full potential across their lifespan. Intervention activities and research can focus on participation as either an independent or dependent variable. The proposed framework and associated hypotheses are applicable to children and young people with a wide variety of conditions, and to their families. In taking a fresh 'non-categorical' perspective to health for children and young people, asking new questions, and exploring issues in innovative ways, we expect to learn lessons and to develop creative solutions that will ultimately benefit children with a wide variety of impairments and challenges, and their families, everywhere.

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)0.007
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations597
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207