MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767678290 · doi:10.1111/jar.12423

Self‐compassion and psychological distress in parents of young people and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities

2017· article· en· W2767678290 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne Robinson, Richard P. Hastings, Jonathan A. Weiss, Jaffni Pagavathsing, Yona Lunsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersOntario Ministry of Community and Social Services
KeywordsPsychologySelf-compassionStressorCoping (psychology)Mental healthDistressIntellectual disabilityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMindfulnessDisadvantageCompassionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parenting an individual with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) can be challenging, particularly during adulthood. It is important to better understand ways of supporting families as individuals with IDD age. Self-compassion is a potential internal coping resource for parents, and is strongly linked to positive mental health outcomes, though research has yet to examine it in parents of adults with IDD. METHOD: The current study examines the association between self-compassion and measures of well-being for 56 parents of adults with IDD. RESULTS: Greater self-compassion was related to lower levels of stress and depression, even after accounting for other known stressors, such as economic disadvantage, having a child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis, and high parent burden. CONCLUSIONS: Self-compassion may offer resiliency against these parenting challenges.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations56
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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