The operation of the social support sector serving siblings of people with disabilities: A cross‐country analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sibling support is a form of support often offered to the brother or sister of a person with disability. While practiced around the world and the subject of much research interest, most research about sibling support has been outcomes evaluation of individual sibling support programs, rather than about the operational/structural circumstances of the organizations providing sibling support or of the sibling support sector at large. Within this context, this paper offers the first research of its kind: an exploratory study of the business operation of sibling support in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, USA and Canada. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews with 13 leaders of sibling support provider organizations in these countries, the paper focuses on sibling support providers' business models, funding, staffing, leadership and governance. The findings highlight that across countries, sibling support is a sub‐section of the not‐for‐profit/charity sector that mostly operates with minimal funding and staffing, and which is largely driven by the passion and personal experience of those who run sibling support organizations. The paper discusses the implications of the findings, with the conceptual lens of seeking to formalize recognition and legitimacy for sibling support as a distinct social service type within the disability/health/social care and not‐for‐profit/charity spaces. Further, by aggregating the experiences of sibling support providers across countries, the paper is able to show that—while a distinct service type and sector—the successes and challenges of the sibling support sector nevertheless also very much reflect the broader struggles of many other small not‐for‐profits/charities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".