Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clefts that involve the lip or mouth are also referred to as orofacial clefts (OFCs). Despite OFCs being one of the highest reported congenital anomalies in Canada, most current cleft studies are focused on assessing the impact of cleft on children, but often yield mixed results. There are few qualitative studies that highlight the voices of children with cleft. This study explores the perceptions and experiences of 10 to 14-year-olds with cleft lip (CL) related to coping with their condition. Using an Interpretive Description methodology, 14 participants were interviewed to understand how they construct their meaning of coping and perceive challenges and successes. Findings reflect participants’ perspective of living with cleft lip and interactions and experiences that shaped their meaning of coping. Using reflexive thematic analysis, themes identified included (1) constructing their meaning of cleft, (2) assembling their cleft toolbox, and (3) utilizing their cleft to help others. Results show that participants’ meaning of cleft was not limited to the challenges of surgery, treatment, or stigma but included opportunities in their cleft journey such as: playing a proactive role in curating their group of friends, assuming a responsibility to teach others about cleft, navigating the tension of wanting to resemble their typical peers while still being a little bit different. Participants viewed their uniqueness as a strength because it enabled them to showcase their abilities and their personality. Each of their stories represents their unique meaning of cleft and how this meaning came to be through their interactions and experiences with others. Findings provide insight, perspective, and implications for clinicians and researchers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".