Protection, participation and protection through participation: young people with intellectual disabilities and decision making in the family context
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: Research suggests that persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) are expected to be more compliant than persons without disabilities and that expectations for compliance begin in childhood. No study, however, seems yet to have included a primary focus on the participatory rights, or rights to express opinions, desires and preferences and to be heard and taken seriously in decision making among young people with ID who are not yet considered legally adult. The purpose of the two current studies was to explore how the right to participation is negotiated for young people with ID in a family context and to determine family members' recommendations for strategies to facilitate the participation of young people with ID. METHOD: In the first study, four young people with ID, their mothers and two siblings from four families took part in semi-structured interviews about decision making in the family context. In the second study, a mother and daughter from the first study discussed and developed strategies to promote participation for young people with ID. RESULTS: In the first study, all participants communicated that young people with ID follow an age-typical yet restricted pattern of participation in decisions about their lives. Young people's participation was consistently framed by familial norms and values as well as their families' desire to protect them. In the second study, both participants suggested communication about the outcomes of real or imagined decisions would help young family members rehearse decision-making strategies that would facilitate their autonomy while remaining within the bounds of familial norms, values and perceptions of safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although young people with ID may make fewer independent decisions about their lives than typically developing peers, support in decision making can enable both increased protection and independence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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