MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309089713 · doi:10.3390/soc12060152

Parent-to-Parent Advice: What Can We Learn by Listening to Parents of Deaf Children

2022· article· en· W4309089713 on OpenAlex
Linsay Flowers, Louise Duchesne, Charles Gaucher

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocieties · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningThematic analysisPsychologyAdvice (programming)Intervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyMedical educationQualitative researchMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parent-to-parent support is an important component of early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children. In this study, we asked parents of DHH children what advice they would give to new parents in their situation. Seventy-one hearing parents of DDH children living in Canada, Switzerland, France, and Belgium participated in interviews that included the following question: “What advice you would give to parents who just learned that their child is deaf?”. We performed a thematic analysis and developed three overarching themes, revolving around the importance of trust, the need for reassurance, and finally, the quest for help. The findings allow to better understand how parental expertise can be used to improve early intervention services for DHH children.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · 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