The goal of making friends for youth with disabilities: creating a goal menu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians working with youth with disabilities have acknowledged making friends as a commonly identified client goal. Clinicians find this goal difficult to address, as there are no measures that provide a breakdown of making friends into functional steps. In addition, research on friendship has traditionally focused on characteristics and quality of friendships rather than the friend-making process as a whole. A goal menu, comprised of a variety of steps that address the goal of making friends, would provide guidance to clinicians challenged with this goal in practice. PURPOSE: To develop an understanding of the friend-making process as a first step towards the development of a goal menu for the goal of making friends. METHODS: A literature review, youth focus group and expert clinician semi-structured interviews and consultation were used to generate a comprehensive data set. Established qualitative methods were used to sort and group the data into categories. A thematic analysis of the categories was performed. RESULTS: Analysis revealed four themes integral to the friend-making process: person factors influencing friend-making, making friend-making a priority, opportunity for friend-making and motivation to make friends. An additional theme identified as occasionally involved in the process was a little bit of luck in making friends. CONCLUSIONS: The themes generated by this research indicate that actionable target areas exist for the somewhat abstract notion of friend-making and the authors recommend that clinicians explore beyond person factors when addressing the goal of making friends. As a next step, the identified themes will provide the foundation for a goal menu, ultimately enabling clinicians to address the goal of making friends in a more efficient and effective manner.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".