INTERPRETING ATYPICAL EATING PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORS AS CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN FOSTERING FAMILY RESILIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to understand Atypical Eating Practices and Behaviors as elements of the resilience process in families with children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Method: a qualitative study using a multiple case study approach. Twenty-five families from five Brazilian states participated. Data were collected between June 2021 and August 2022 through online interviews. A general analytical strategy was employed, processing the data from scratch, along with the cross-case synthesis analytical technique. The analysis enabled the abstraction of a general theoretical explanation. Results: the following theoretical categories emerged: Atypical Eating Practices and Behaviors and Perceptions of Practices and Strategies. Assigning meaning to Atypical Eating Practices and Behaviors as elements of the family resilience process involves understanding that when families recognize and invest in key processes, share them internally and externally, they begin to normalize their children's needs regarding eating practices and behaviors. Families demonstrate that they do not limit potential based on the condition, thereby promoting the child’s holistic development. The study identifies the child’s autonomy and the family’s organization to provide meaningful support, aiming to implement changes and strategies in daily food-related activities that include the child. Conclusion: families strive to recognize their beliefs, organization, and communication regarding their children's eating habits, seeking ways to strengthen family functioning and resilience. The theoretical framework developed in this study may be modified; however, once validated, it can be used by professionals working in clinical practice with families and in the development of interventions aimed at promoting family resilience processes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".