MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737409242 · doi:10.1177/1744629517719347

Meta-synthesis of fathers’ experiences raising children on the autism spectrum

2017· review· en· W2737409242 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Lashewicz, Leah Shipton, Kevin Lien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchContext (archaeology)ReverenceEarly childhood educationChild rearingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents raising children with autism have distinct experiences that influence their well-being, relationships, engagement with the public, and interaction with education and healthcare systems. However, experiences of fathers of children with autism have been largely overlooked by researchers. This meta-synthesis is our synthesis of qualitative accounts of fathers' experiences and we included peer reviewed and gray literature articles that: (1) reported primary qualitative research, (2) included fathers of children with autism as participants, and (3) reported qualitative findings on the first-hand experiences of fathers of children with autism. Studies were appraised for quality and many theoretical and methodological deficiencies identified. Six studies met quality appraisal criteria and three main themes of findings from these studies were generated: (1) adaptation and concern with the future, (2) the importance of cultural context, and (3) reverence for one's child and new opportunities. Fathers' experiences illuminate a need for father-oriented resources that recognize fathers' value in children's lives.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207