MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement of Community Participation and Use of Leisure by Service Users with Intellectual Disabilities: the Guernsey Community Participation and Leisure Assessment (GCPLA)

2000· article· en· W1966525793 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsService (business)Community servicePsychologyIntellectual disabilityControl (management)Community participationPublic relationsBusinessSociologyMarketingPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Community integration is now an important principle guiding service provision for people with intellectual disabilities. However, it has been argued that research has contributed little in the way of guidance and that this is mainly because of the lack of appropriate measures. The Guernsey Community Participation and Leisure Assessment (GCPLA) is described in the present paper. The GCPLA is a comprehensive assessment of community participation and the use of leisure that produces both quantitative and qualitative data. Data are presented which suggest that the instrument is potentially both valid and reliable. A study comparing use of their community by service users and a staff control group showed that the service users had a smaller range of activities, were less busy (i.e. took part in fewer frequent activities), and were more likely to access their communities in the presence of staff or carers, rather than alone or with friends. Suggestions for the use of the GCPLA are discussed including individual planning, service evaluation and training.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations59
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207