A Longitudinal Study of Siblings of Children with Chronic Disabilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the unaffected siblings of 2 different groups with chronic disabilities, pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and Down syndrome (DS), over 3 years, comparing their adjustment with each other and with the siblings of a nondisabled group. METHOD: This study examines 137 siblings of children with PDD, children with DS, and developmentally normal children (control group) initially and 127 siblings at follow-up 3 years later. Their adjustment is measured by the Survey Diagnostic Instrument (SDI), completed by caregivers and teachers. Predictor variables include sibling self-perception, social support, and relationship with sibling, as indicated by siblings; caregiver psychosocial factors such as parental stress, caregiver depression, and marital relationship; family systems characteristics as viewed by both caregiver and sibling; and difficulty that disabled child causes as perceived by the primary caregiver. RESULTS: Significantly more adjustment problems are found in the siblings of PDD children at both times when compared with siblings of DS and control children. Caregivers of PDD children report the highest levels of distress and depression, and this persists over time. Parent distress was found, at both times, to be related to sibling adjustment problems, regardless of study group. CONCLUSION: These results have implications for preventive intervention for the unaffected siblings of PDD 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it