MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781241527 · doi:10.1080/10502556.2017.1403823

The Voice of the Child in Parenting Coordination: Views of Children, Parents, and Parenting Coordinators

2017· article· en· W2781241527 on OpenAlex
Catherine Quigley, Francine Cyr

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Divorce & Remarriage · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyInclusion (mineral)PerceptionDevelopmental psychologyParenting skillsSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the views of children, parents, and parenting coordinators (PCs) on child inclusion in the parenting coordination process. Participants in a parenting coordination pilot project in Montréal, Quebec—10 children (ranging in age from 8–17 years old), 14 parents, and 2 PCs—were interviewed at the end of the project. The goal was to understand their perceptions of child participation in parenting coordination interventions. Overall, a vast majority of children and parents agreed that children should be given a forum in parenting coordination and their voices heard. Feedback from PCs on their child inclusion experience also provided rare insight into this practice. Results confirm the importance for children of being heard in postseparation interventions, even when parental conflict is high. These findings add to the growing literature on the participation of children in postseparation interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.309 · 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