MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914699129 · doi:10.1111/jppi.12283

Factors Affecting the Health of Caregivers of Children Who Have an Intellectual/Developmental Disability

2019· article· en· W2914699129 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityPsychologyMental healthAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyPhysical healthFamily caregiversGerontologyNarrative reviewClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are a growing number of children with an ID/developmental disability. As well, there is evidence of poor health in the caregivers of these children. This article describes a narrative review of the literature regarding the mental and physical health of caregivers of children with ID/developmental disability. The review examined 162 papers. Twenty‐three different factors were identified that may have an effect on the health of these caregivers. Social determinants, individual caregiver variables, characteristics of the child with the disability, family characteristics, and support factors can all affect caregiver health. These variables are inter‐related and illustrate the need to account for complexity when studying the health of caregivers of children with ID/developmental disability.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.329 · 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