Structure and dynamics of families in the late life cycle stage and intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To know and understand the dynamics of a family including a member with Intellectual Disability in the late life cycle stage. Method: This was a qualitative clinical study. Ten families that took part in semistructured interviews were chosen. The interviews were complemented with genograms and ecomaps, and then content and thematic analysis was performed. The Systems Theory was used as theoretical referential and the Calgary Model for Family Evaluation (MCAF), as the methodologic referential. Results: Based on interviews with families, the following categories were developed: Family’s interaction with Intellectual Disability; Communication as a family strategy to share feelings and notice the other person; The perception of family isolation and the need of external aid; Family’s concern about future care: aging and death; and Interview as a tool to increase family communication and future reflections. Conclusion: Families including a person with Intellectual Disability face changes in their dynamics, structure and organization; they deal with difficulties regarding the social inclusion of the person with Intellectual Disability; and use specific mechanisms of communication and support search, in addition to the suffer they face towards future projections
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".