MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1796804295 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01551.x

General, mental health and special issues of JIDR

2012· article· en· W1796804295 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Holland

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDiversity (politics)Mental healthVariety (cybernetics)Representation (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Plan (archaeology)SociologyLibrary scienceSpecial needsPsychologySocial scienceGerontologyPolitical scienceHistoryPsychiatryMedicineLawPoliticsAnthropologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In my editorial in the January 2011 issue I reflected on the future and diversity of research in intellectual disability, the latter being well illustrated by the variety of papers published in JIDR. The main reason for such a range of papers is because the focus of the Journal is very much on a group of people with complex and diverse needs. JIDR seeks to support this diversity of research, not only through its general issues, but also through the regular mental health and the SSBP issues and through special issues on selected topics. In 2011 Roy Brown and Trevor Parmenter were editors for two editions on Residential and Community Support and Ralph Koper and Mian Wang were editors for two editions on Family Quality of Life. In both cases the original plan had been for one edition for each topic but the quantity and high quality of papers submitted were such that we took the decision to expand to two editions for each special issue. One particular aspect that is striking in both cases is the international nature of research, with a strong representation of papers from Europe, the Far East, and North America. This is a very significant change with what I hope is a growing academic interest in the field of intellectual disabilities across the world. However, there is still the absence of papers from countries in the continents of Africa and South America and from the Middle East. The advantage of such special issues is that they are a repository for key papers directed towards a specific research topic and also, where appropriate, such issues enable interesting comparisons to be made between differing perspectives and countries. Such special editions both encourage research in a specific area as well as promote findings from completed research often about issues that are of major concern across all countries regardless of the culture or their economic status, such as is the case with the topics of the 2011 special issues. There is a real strength in being able to compare and contrast in this way and to argue that what is observed in one country could be improved or could be done in a different way as shown by the work published from elsewhere. In this way research not only results in new knowledge but can be directly used to guide change informed by a range of research of high calibre. For 2012 we will have two special issues devoted to the abstracts of papers accepted for the Halifax IASSID conference as well as special issues on Human Rights (edited by Isabel Clare and Tim Stainton); and on self-injurious behaviour (edited by Chris Oliver, Darragh Devine, and Frank Symons). The issue on human rights is timed to be published in June 2012 before the IASSID Conference so that the papers are available for discussion at that conference. These two topics illustrate the diversity of special issues. However, such diversity is not without its critics, particularly with respect to the very different methodologies used depending on the topic in question. Studies of self-injurious behaviour, for example, are likely to use specific methodologies such as structured observations built around testing a particular psychological perspective. What about studies on human rights and how should they be assessed? Here the methodologies may be very different and based, for example, on philosophical analysis or a qualitative approach. Whatever the topic, the field of intellectual disabilities requires both strong conceptual papers and rigorous qualitative and quantitative data led papers based around sound theoretical concepts, thereby enabling new ideas to develop. The test for me as editor is whether the contribution not only brings new knowledge and insights but, when challenged, can, because of the quality of the study or the arguments put forward, be robustly defended. Again, so much of research in a field as diverse and interdisciplinary as intellectual disabilities is an iterative process with new data leading to new ideas which in turn results in new investigations and evolving policy and practice. What then for the future of JIDR? This year will be my tenth year as editor and next year will be a time for change. JIDR remains strong with a steady increase in submissions and the number of downloads each year have climbed above the 250 000 mark, demonstrating that the papers are relevant and of interest to many. However, our impact factor has remained at 1.6 and to increase this remains our most significant challenge. To do this we have avoided short-term strategies such as self-citation but have chosen to position ourselves as an international journal and through our policy of having regular and invited themed issues, together with occasional annotations, we seek to promote and publish research that draws from various perspectives applying such perspectives to understanding the needs of the particular population we are here to serve – people with intellectual disabilities. None of this would be possible without the administrative support of Sue Hampton Matthews, and the editorial assistance of Anna Cooper, Chris Oliver and Jan Blacher together with the invited editors for special issues. To them and to the many of you who review for us and who read the papers we publish I am very grateful.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,574
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,193
Tête enseignante GPT0,515
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Intellectual Disability ResearchMême sujetEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareTravaux en français237 207