Comparison of community residential supports on measures of <i>information & planning; access to & delivery of supports; choice & control; community connections; satisfaction</i>; and, <i>overall perception of outcomes</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper reports on some of the findings of a large-scale survey (n = 852) of family members and support staff of adults with intellectual disabilities receiving community living services in British Columbia, Canada, concentrating on comparison of outcomes across four types of community residential settings: group homes, family model homes, independent home or apartment, and family home. METHOD: Comparisons were conducted on six domains: information and planning; access to and delivery of supports; choice and control; community connections; satisfaction; and, overall perception of outcomes. Where applicable, further multivariate analyses were undertaken to determine the effect of the degree of help required by the residents and the respondent type. RESULTS: Findings indicate that on all measures other than choice and control, group homes and family model homes showed better outcomes than either independent settings or family homes. CONCLUSION: The findings may indicate that the move to more independent living settings is not being accompanied by appropriate supports.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it