MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965839998 · doi:10.1108/tldr-04-2019-0017

Commentary on “The sibling’s perspective: experiences of having a sibling with a learning disability and behaviour described as challenging”

2019· article· en· W2965839998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clare Kassa

Bibliographic record

VenueTizard Learning Disability Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiblingPerspective (graphical)OriginalityLearning disabilityPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyValue (mathematics)Sibling relationshipSociologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on the article by Chase and McGill from the perspective of Sibs, the only UK-wide charity dedicated to supporting siblings of disabled children and adults. Design/methodology/approach This commentary explores the implication of Chase and McGill’s findings for sibling support. Findings The article highlights how siblings need greater support throughout their life and argues that their views must influence the provision and development of that support. Originality/value This viewpoint focuses on the needs of adult siblings, often a forgotten group facing unique challenges and shared experiences.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTizard Learning Disability ReviewSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207