MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232718660 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646162

Child life specialists' perspectives on collaboration with schools

2021· preprint· en· W4232718660 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Pershick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialNursingPerceptionQualitative researchCoping (psychology)Health professionalsPsychologyMedicineMedical educationFamily medicineHealth careSociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As paediatric patients transition from the hospital environment, there is a lack to programs and supports to assist in this transitional phase. The child life specialist plays a unique role within the interprofessional team of professionals in the hospital. They provide paediatric patients and their families with psychosocial services such as age and developmentally appropriate coping mechanisms. A mixed-method study was conducted through qualitative semi-structured interviews, and a survey to explore how child life managers and frontline child life specialists perceived their role expanding outside of the hospital. five themes emerged from questions asked in the interviews and surveys. These themes include: role perceptions, collaboration with health care professionals, collaboration with school professionals, challenges to collaboration and recommendations for the role expansion. From these five themes, thirteen sub-themes emerged spontaneously. The findings of this research study indicate that there is a consensus from both child life managers and specialists on the value of expanding their role beyond the hospital. although considered an essential service in some hospitals, further steps need to be taken to ensure child life specialists feel that their services are validated in the hospitals.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207