Relationship between prior legal involvement and current crisis for adults with intellectual disability
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: Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and legal involvement are a unique population with complex needs. To date, there has been limited research exploring the demographic and clinical profiles of individuals with ID and legal involvement that are in crisis and how they differ to individuals with ID without legal involvement. METHOD: 130 adults with ID and a history of legal involvement were compared to 617 without legal involvement who had experienced at least one crisis in terms of crisis presentation and outcome. RESULTS: Overall, those with a known history of legal involvement were younger, higher functioning and more likely to be male and living in unsupported settings. Legal history was not a significant predictor of crisis involving aggression but was a significant predictor of police response to crisis, when other variables were controlled for. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ID and legal history may be more likely to have police respond to their crises than other individuals. Understanding the unique profiles of those with legal history can inform the development of services targeted towards offenders with ID.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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