MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294584580 · doi:10.1177/10664807221123550

The Recover Study: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Relationship Between Ontario Parents’ Resilience and COVID-19-Related Stressors

2022· article· en· W4294584580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Yates, Jennifer D. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Family Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorFamily resiliencePsychologyPsychological resilienceSocial isolationMental healthPandemicDevelopmental psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience, or the ability to bounce back despite facing adversities, may influence parents’ abilities to handle the multitude of parent-specific COVID-19-related challenges that have faced them. This cross-sectional study examined (1) the relationship between parents’ resilience and their COVID-19-related family stressors; (2) parents’ perceptions of their greatest stressors throughout the pandemic; and (3) non-school-related challenges and their resultant impact on parents’ and children's resilience. Via an online survey, data was collected from 63 parents (M age = 37.09; 82.54% female). A significant relationship was found between parents’ resilience and both their COVID-19-related stressors and family stressors. Parents described stressors challenging their resilience, including impacts on their mental health, managing occupational and educational responsibilities, social isolation, and economic setbacks, while also noting the impacts of social isolation, missing extracurricular activities, and lacking routines for their children. Overall, Ontario parents high in resilience are likely better positioned to adapt to pandemic-related stressors.

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)0.002
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Family JournalSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207