MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167144346 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2021.679974

Understanding Stability and Change in Perceived Social Support in Parents of Autistic Children and Adolescents

2021· article· en· W3167144346 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan A. Weiss, Suzanne Robinson, Rebecca Pillai Riddell, David B. Flora

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSocial supportPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAutismStressorReciprocalLongitudinal studyClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents of children with autism often have their own support needs. Informal social support can be an important component of managing parenting-related stressors. We know very little about the factors that lead to higher levels of perceived social support or the potential reciprocal relationship social support has with other factors in parents of children with autism. The current longitudinal study examined the reciprocal relations of perceived social support and parent stress and child behavior problems across a 1-year period, using three time points. There was remarkable stability in variables over time. Baseline perceived social support significantly predicted changes in child behavior and parent stress at the 6-month time point, but neither of those variables significantly predicted social support. This study adds to our understanding of social support and clarifies how perceived social support relates to other factors longitudinally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207