MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597403148 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.36.1.153

CONNORS, Clare and Kirsten STALKER, <b>THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND THEIR SIBLINGS: A Positive Outlook</b>

2005· article· en· W2597403148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcie Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesSociologySocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONNORS, Clare and Kirsten STALKER, THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND THEIR SIBLINGS: A Positive Outlook. Independence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routeledge, 2003, 187 pp., $24.95 softcover.This short book, set in Great Britain, looks at how children living with disability and their siblings feel about the disability and how it has changed or not changed their lives. It begins with a short glossary of key terms. The authors point out that ... .. disability is rooted in an unequal social relationship, the effects of which can manifest themselves as barriers-physical, social and emotional-restricting the lives of disabled people. [p. 103] Chapters include the policy and research background, methods and conducting the research, children negotiating day-to-day life at home and at school, services and professionals, brothers and sisters, and children's understanding of their disability. Also included with the book are references and a number of very helpful appendices showing which consent forms were provided for various age levels and for siblings to sign as well as a guide for questions used to elicit information from the disabled children and the siblings about family life, school life, and how to relate to professional providers.The authors wisely used qualitative research methods to approach this topic. Qualitative approaches are being more and more widely used in disability studies because they allow those being researched to be involved in all stages of the study, the approaches acknowledge them the experts and the researchers the learners, and qualitative approaches improve the quality of the research and the results when those who are disabled and their families are involved throughout the research process.The children in this study speak movingly of their relationship with their parents and with their siblings, as well as their classmates and with children and adults in the wider public. Much of what is described by disabled children, the ups and downs, the bullying, the closeness, would be the same for any sibling relationship. These researchers also found that the older the children became, the fewer activities there were for them to join; furthermore, as the children grew older, physical barriers to their activities and their interests became more apparent. Like children almost everywhere, these children reported enjoying life, being good at activities and having close family, sibling and friendships. While most sibling relationships were in the normal range and siblings got along well together, there were a few reports of bitter and sometimes violent relationships with sibs.On the negative side, they reported difficulties with socially imposed restrictions on their chosen activities. These included inaccessible buildings and transportation systems and a lack of appropriate support for communication. The children were quite positive about their experience with their teachers, who often function as an important parental figure. When they discussed their assistants and attendants, their feelings were much more complex and ambivalent, with attendants put into at least five categories, including the replaceable assistant, the assistant as mother or father, the professional assistant, the assistant as friend or buddy, and their ideal assistant. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207