Families That Do Well: Lay Conceptualizations of Well‐Functioning, Healthy, Strong, and Good Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore laypeople's conceptualization of terms that refer to families that do well and how social‐contextual factors shape these conceptualizations. Background Although there is abundant academic and popular literature about families that do well, little research has explored lay conceptualizations. Our focus responds to critiques of top‐down approaches that minimize the value of family members' knowledge. Method A socioeconomically diverse sample of 34 adults was asked to describe well‐functioning families , healthy families , strong families , and good families . Data analysis for this critical ethnographic study involved thematic content analysis and exploration of participants' conceptualizations in relation to social‐contextual influences. Results Participants' descriptions revealed three categories of attributes of families that do well: functional–instrumental characteristics , interpersonal relationships , and healthy lifestyle behaviors . Analysis of social‐contextual influences revealed limited variation within and across thematic categories of attributes of families that do well. Conclusion This study contributes to evidence showing considerable, but not complete, alignment between laypeople's understandings of families that do well and scholars' and professionals' ideas. Laypeople have some of their own ideas about families that do well. Implications Our study highlights laypeople's perspectives as legitimate knowledge with implications for services, programs, and policies that support families to “do well.”
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".