Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper highlights the circumstances of older families of adults with an intellectual disability (ID) using scenarios drawn from current research, the practice literature pertaining to older families, and basic tenets of family quality of life as a field of study. Specific issues discussed include the propensity in the literature to emphasize negative aspects of prolonged coresidence of older parents and adults with an ID; evidence‐based practice often dominated by a focus on future planning, particularly in regard to transitions from home, financial issues, and guardianship; and little research or practice identifying a planning process that considers the older family as a whole, taking into account and addressing the needs and concerns of all family members affected by ageing circumstances. Additionally, scant literature on the involvement of family in the lives of middle‐aged and older adults already living in residential services is available to guide practice to successfully maintain family involvement under these circumstances. The author concludes that there is a need to expand evidence‐based practice beyond work with older parents cohabiting with a son or daughter with an ID and future planning, and that a family quality of life approach has the potential to identify proactive strategies that strengthen family relations and actively engage older families in the development of policy and practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".