“We’re treading water as best we can”: A qualitative study of parental resilience during COVID-19.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Ontario-based study utilized modified grounded theory to consider the potential burden of chronic stressors on parents of young children during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as parental experiences of coping and resilience. Cross-sectional interviews at a single point in time do not reveal change and adaptation during an evolving pandemic; for this reason, this study conducted one interview at the end of the first wave of the pandemic in Ontario and a second interview a year and a half later. Twenty parents participated in two interviews, and findings are presented using Bonanno's (2004, 2005) mental health trajectory model following life disruption. The recovery trajectory details parental stressors and challenges that returned to baseline; the chronic stress trajectory notes parental experiences of unremitting stressors; and the resilience trajectory describes helpful behaviors, beliefs, and conditions that supported parental mental wellness across both interviews. Findings reveal that the resilience and recovery trajectories were dominant among this cohort, and descriptions of both problem-based and emotional-based coping through creativity and parental innovation are presented, as well as unforeseen positive impacts of the pandemic on families. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".