The Perceived Role of Risk And Resilience Factors Regarding Children in Middle Childhood’s Psycho-Social Well-Being in a South African Rural High-Risk Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Middle childhood can be a period of significant challenges for many children as they may struggle to adapt to the demands of this life phase and their external environment. The external environment of the child is central for positive development and quality of life. However, the situation is even worse for children who live in a South African rural high-risk community, and are faced with numerous contextual vulnerabilities and multiple stressors related to poverty. METHOD: This qualitative study used a qualitative descriptive research design and data were collected via individual interviews (parent participants) and focus group discussions (teacher participants). Thematic and content analysis were used allowing for an inductive process. FINDINGS: Findings displayed a mostly deficit mentality regarding children in middle childhood’s psycho-social well-being. The first theme referred to the negative influences of the disempowering high-risk setting for the psycho-social well-being of children in middle childhood. The second theme indicated the possible dangers for family functioning. The third theme elucidated the role of the different stakeholders to lessen these environmental stressors and obstacles to ensure safety, stability, and children’s well-being. Finally, specific components were given to intentionally protect and promote the psycho-social well-being of children in middle childhood in this community. LIMITATION: Individual interviews with parent participants were mainly conducted with female participants; data obtained from male participants could add even richer information. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that future research investigate the encouragement of the psycho-social well-being of children in middle childhood in this rural community by strengthening families’ resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".