MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404955986 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312692

Caregiver approaches, resiliencies, and experiences raising individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: A study protocol paper

2024· article· en· W4404955986 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Flannigan, Devon C. Edwards, Dorothy Reid, Audrey McFarlane, Jacqueline Pei

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderStressorPsychological resiliencePsychologyProtocol (science)MedicineKnowledge translationTranslational researchDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyAlternative medicinePsychotherapistKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a complex neurodevelopmental disability characterized by a range of brain- and body-based difficulties which, when left unsupported, can lead to experiences of significant adversity across the lifespan. Caregivers of individuals with FASD play a critical role in advocating and supporting healthy outcomes for individuals with FASD, and most caregiver research to date has been focused on stressors and challenges. Very few studies have been conducted to systematically capture the full experience of caring for someone with FASD across the lifespan, including perspectives, concerns, as well as strengths and successes of caregivers and their families. Collaborative research with individuals with living experience is essential for understanding needs and supporting healthy outcomes for individuals with FASD and their families, and caregivers are in a unique and important position to provide perspectives and share living expertise. Therefore, the current study was developed collaboratively with caregivers and researchers to capture the many aspects of caregivers' contexts, concerns, needs, and successes in raising individuals with FASD. In this study protocol paper, we describe the rationale, development, design, and anticipated impacts of this research. The goal of this paper is to share information about why and how this study is being done, and potentially guide other teams in developing similar projects to better understand caregivers' experiences, needs, and successes. Documenting and giving voice to the breadth and depth of caregiver experiences will help us to tailor services and supports, develop resources, stimulate knowledge translation based in resilience and protective factors, guide future studies, and inform evidence-based policy initiatives.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.011

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207