MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1901867129 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-53.4.289

Psychotropic and Anticonvulsant Medication: Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Who Transitioned to the Community From an Institution

2015· article· en· W1901867129 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Kelly, Yani Su

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual and developmental disabilities · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsDelmar (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityPopulationPsychologyGerontologyEnforcementMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influenced by Georgia's settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice relating to the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an increasing number of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are transitioning from institutions to community living. In this study we evaluate the pattern of medication use among individuals who recently transitioned to the community (IRTC), comparing results to the IDD population already residing in the community (comparison group). Average use and prevalence rates were trended over time, between January 1, 2010, and December 31. 2012. Findings indicate a significant increase in medication use in the IRTC and comparison group, with a greater and faster increase in the IRTC population. We suggest the transition process should be examined and revised, ensuring adequate preparation time and training for each person and relevant staff, particularly on medications and challenging behaviors. Several demographic trends were also significant and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual and developmental disabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207