Navigating the “Blind World”: The psychosocial and occupational experiences of parents of adolescents with visual impairments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research has shown that parenting an adolescent with a visual impairment may present unique challenges, a few studies have examined how parents negotiate such challenges and the meanings they derive from their parenting experiences. Using a constructivist narrative inquiry approach, this study explored how four parents of adolescents with visual impairments storied their psychosocial and occupational experiences of childrearing. A holistic-content analysis and thematic analysis of participants’ narrative accounts was conducted, resulting in the identification of the following five themes: (1) Grief, Uncertainty, and Frustration During the Early Years; (2) Identity as An Advocate; (3) Enabling Independence and Planning for the Future; (4) Navigating Challenges in Getting Required Support: Frustrations and Successes; and (5) Changed Perceptions Within the Context of Societal Misunderstanding. Findings of this study address a gap in the current body of literature by highlighting the complexity of parents’ experiences along the journey of raising an adolescent with a visual impairment. These complexities are important to address in low vision rehabilitation practice to best support parents and youth, and further research is required to inform such practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it