MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193542783 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2021.709984

Developmental Disability: Families and Functioning in Child and Adolescence

2021· review· en· W3193542783 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthIntervention (counseling)PsychologyConceptual frameworkPsychological interventionDimension (graph theory)Inclusion (mineral)Developmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides an integrated framework for health for everyone. Several aspects of this approach to health allow us to see people's lives in a richer and more holistic manner than has traditionally been the case based on diagnosis alone. These features include the positive language (emphasizing in particular "activity," "participation," and "personal factors"); the interconnections of the parts of this "dynamic system," in which every component can influence every other one; and the formal inclusion of "contextual factors"-personal and environmental-that are otherwise too easy to take for granted and then ignore. This paper addresses the "environmental" dimension of the ICF framework-specifically referring to "family" as the central environmental force in the lives of children and adolescents. The perspectives of the author are those of a developmental pediatrician, whose career has focused on children with conditions that challenge their development, and their families. Lessons learned from a lifetime of work-including teaching and research as well as clinical services-are offered. Particular emphases will be on (i) the importance of focusing on the family in a non-judgmental "family-centered" way; (ii) how conceptual ideas about child (and family) development and parenting are as important as technical approaches to intervention; and (iii) how the ICF framework "allows"-indeed encourages-such a focus to have value and importance equal to the best of biomedical interventions. Examples from current research will illustrate how these ideas can be implemented.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207