MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mothers with Intellectual Disabilities Raising Children with Intellectual Disabilities

2017· article· en· W2573097988 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolish Legal and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)Intellectual disabilityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article describes the results of research involving mothers with intellectual disabilities. The aim of author's own study was to learn about maternal experiences related to raising children with intellectual disabilities. The experiences were described in greater detail in relation to the diagnosed disabilities of their children, early stage of their upbringing, problems emerging during their development, involvement of significant (supporting) persons. In addition, issues addressed in the study included description of maternal competences, the subjective meaning and essence of motherhood, and perception of the role of one's own disability in acting as a mother. Moreover, factors related to life situation of mothers, their previous experiences, especially experiences in their families of origin and personality features significant for the quality of motherhood, were identified.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.272 · 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