MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394631393 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1294340

What supports and services post COVID-19 do children with disabilities and their parents need and want, now and into the future?

2024· article· en· W4394631393 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kinga Pozniak, Amanda Swain, Graham Currie, Amanda Doherty-Kirby, Danijela Grahovac, Jason Lebsack, Wenonah Campbell, Cathy Humphreys, Susan Patterson, Sandeep Raha, Julia Whitley, Olaf Kraus de Camargo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMount Royal UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicMedicineData sciencePsychologyComputer scienceVirologyOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Children and youth with disabilities and special healthcare needs, and their families, have been uniquely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the voices of children themselves are still not well represented in the existing literature. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study used a combination of visual methods and interviews to learn about the experiences of Canadian children with disabilities (n=18) and their parents (n=14) during the COVID pandemic and into the post-pandemic period. Data collection was carried out between January and July 2023. The aim was to identify the supports and services children and families need at present and moving forward. Results: Families' pandemic experiences were complex and nuanced. For many, the pandemic complicated and disrupted everyday activities and supports. These disruptions were largely buffered by parents. However, some families also identified unexpected benefits. Key themes pertaining to present and future needs included the need for services that are flexible; consistent; conducive to relationship-building; comprehensive; coordinated across sectors; and designed to support the needs of the whole family. Discussion: Implications for policy and practice are outlined.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207