MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903436262 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs94201818642

FAMILY QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE BUILDING OF SOCIAL CONNECTIONS: PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

2018· article· en· W2903436262 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Meaghan Edwards, Trevor R. Parmenter, Patricia O’Brien, Roy I. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial isolationIntervention (counseling)Face (sociological concept)Quality of life (healthcare)Social exclusionSocial supportInclusion (mineral)Isolation (microbiology)PoliticsPsychologyAction (physics)SociologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePsychiatryLawPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family quality of life literature suggests that families with a member with an intellectual/developmental disability frequently face major difficulties in building social connections with others. They experience low levels of social support, face challenges in community inclusion, and are at risk of social isolation. These challenges may also be faced by other types of marginalized families. Families experiencing serious illness, families experiencing intrafamily violence, and migrant families or those seeking political asylum, for example, may also become isolated and find themselves without pathways to connections with others. We present practical suggestions intended for families and professionals interested in action and intervention at the personal, community, program, and policy levels to encourage the growth of social connections and prevent isolation of families experiencing social exclusion. The suggestions will come from families with a member with a disability and the findings of a study examining the social support of families as it relates to quality of life.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.020
Open science0.0080.015
Research integrity0.0220.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207