“SPECIAL” FAMILIES AND THEIR “NORMAL” DAILY LIVES: FAMILY QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the social and societal factors that influence family quality of life (FQOL). In this qualitative study from the Netherlands, a multiple case study design was used, in which members of families having a child or children with intellectual and developmental disabilities talked about their experiences during interviews. The data were analysed through a rigorous inductive thematic analysis. Our findings relate to the families’ experiences with their social environment and especially with the support they received. We argue that processes of acceptance and understanding play a role in FQOL. Also, we illustrate how the family members experience their interaction with the community, and how moral norms and values could influence the lives of the families. The families reflected on notions of normality and being different, and sometimes struggled with the implicit norms and values of society, which can impede acceptance and understanding by others. In turn, these norms and values influence the level of support from other people and the possibilities for social interaction with the community.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it