Protective Factors for Subjective Well-being in Mothers of Children with Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was conducted to understand the relationship of general self-efficacy and two aspects of social support with cognitive and affective facets of subjective well-being in mothers of children having Down syndrome in contrast to mothers of typical children. Survey was conducted with mothers of two types of children (n = 89 each). Data were collected through Generalized Self-Efficay Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), Social Support Questionnaire-Short Form (SSQ-6; Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987), and Trait Well-Being Inventory (Dalbert, 1992). It was found that with higher level of perceived available social support, the mothers of children having Down syndrome were more satisfied with their life. Further, with higher self-efficacy and higher satisfaction with the social support, mothers of both types of children were more satisfied with their life and had better mood in general. Perceived available social support benefitted mothers of children having Down syndrome only, while, satisfaction with social support and self-efficacy were protective factors for subjective well-being of mothers, in general.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".