The 1983 AAMR Manual, the 1992 AAMR Manual, or the Developmental Disabilities Act: Which do Researchers Use?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined Participants' sections of all research articles published in four journals, from 1993 through 2001, to determine how the authors described participants in research in mental retardation. Approximately two-thirds of research articles during that period have consistently described participants by the diagnostic categories (mild, moderate, severe, and profound) from the 1983 AAMR diagnostic manual (Grossman, 1983). An average of 10% of research articles described participants in terms of the 1992 AAMR manual (Luckasson et al., 1992), which eliminated the diagnostic categories of the 1983 manual. Only an average of 4% of research articles described participants as persons with a developmental disability. Possible reasons for these trends are discussed.
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 | 0.222 | 0.537 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".