A Proposed Framework for an Integrated Process of Improving Quality of Life
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
Abstract The need for quality of life, both as a concept and as a measure, to be applied to policy and practice has been noted in the disability literature for several years. In 2012, S chalock and V erdugo introduced a conceptual model to help service organizations evaluate if congruence exists among their systems, policies, and practices and, if misalignments exist, to make changes through policy and systems change. Their model focuses on two levels, system‐level processes and organization‐level practices, at three consecutive stages of use: inputs, throughputs, and outputs. In this article, the authors extend the work of S chalock and V erdugo by adding a third level of application, individual‐ and family‐level living, and propose the inclusion of outcomes as a fourth stage of use representing a consequence of outputs. We recognize the dynamic interaction among all components of the conceptual framework and, like S chalock and V erdugo, argue for alignment both vertically (system, organization, and individual and family living levels) and horizontally (inputs, throughputs, outputs, and outcomes) within our revised conceptual framework. Based on this, the authors propose that quality of life outcomes (the ongoing effects of outputs) should be an ultimate focus of service organizations and policy development if quality of life is to be enhanced for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
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 | 0.007 | 0.671 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it