<scp>IASSIDD</scp>: Are We Practicing Knowledge Translation Effectively?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The International Association for the Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IASSIDD) was established in the early 1960s with the mission of advancing research in the field of intellectual disabilities. This article explores the history and impact of IASSIDD. In particular, it focuses on IASSIDD's role in the area of knowledge translation and promoting research to practice. The history of IASSIDD is documented. Its evolution is analyzed in the context of social, political, and scientific developments across the globe over the past 40 years. There has been an increased focus on evidence‐based decision making and improving practice through research. There is evidence of a shifting emphasis from a primarily medicalized understanding of people with disability and their needs, to a focus that now includes the social, cultural, and economic needs of people with disability and their families. Greater attention is being paid to the construction of policy and service systems that are person‐centered in their orientation, taking into account the priorities and aspirations of individuals, and emphasizing concepts such as inclusion, choice, and self‐determination. Consistent with this, there is growing emphasis on inclusive research processes that value the cocreation of knowledge in partnership with people with disability and their families. IASSIDD and our disability research community need to discover and implement new methods of knowledge generation and translation. As an association that values research to practice, and improving the lives of people with disabilities, IASSIDD plays a major role in refining and promoting these emerging approaches to knowledge generation and translation, and their integration into policy and service developments.
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 | 0.024 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".