MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221002821 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.885679

Editorial: Coping With the Pediatric Coping Literature: Innovative Approaches to Move the Field Forward

2022· editorial· en· W4221002821 on OpenAlexaff
Line Caes, C. Meghan McMurtry, Christina Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)PsychologyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First paragraph: Chronic illnesses, injuries, and other health conditions (herein “conditions”) such as sickle cell disease, chronic pain, and burns are life-disrupting challenges for children and their families. Coping strategies can be defined as “cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of a person” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 112). In the context of chronic pediatric health concerns, children and their caregivers/parents must cope with the management of the condition itself, its indirect impact and associated treatment on their daily life (e.g., effect on school engagement), in addition to unrelated “everyday” stressors (e.g., parenting, peer conflict) (Turner-Cobb, 2013). Despite a substantive body of literature exploring coping strategies and quality of life in children living with a chronic condition, several theoretical and empirical gaps remain, including a large number and variable application of coping frameworks or models together with vague and inconsistent operationalization of coping strategies. For instance, Rudolph et al. (1995) proposed a conceptualization of coping that distinguishes between coping responses, goals, and outcomes. Coping responses are actions initiated in relation to a perceived stressor, while the goals are the reasons behind the engagement in a coping response, and the outcomes are the consequences of the coping response. Yet, these different components of coping have been used interchangeably in the context of pediatric chronic health conditions, with assessment or conceptualization of each aspect of coping varying substantially within and across health concerns. Consequently, the goal of this Research Topic “Coping with the Pediatric Coping Literature: Innovative Approaches to Move the Field Forward” was to bundle innovative and cutting-edge research that increases our understanding of coping strategies and their underlying mechanisms within pediatric chronic health conditions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0160.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→