MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuity and change in the use of residential services by adults with intellectual disability: the Aberdeen cohort at mid‐life

2000· article· en· W2004608292 on OpenAlexaff
David C. May, James Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortChallenging behaviourGerontologyIntellectual disabilityCohort studyMedicineCohort effectPsychologyDemographyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper reports a follow-up study of a representative cohort of people with intellectual disability, now in middle age, who entered adult services on leaving school in the late 1960s, and whose adult years have coincided with a period of radical policy change and considerable service expansion. The present authors focus on the changes which have taken place in their use of residential services over this period. Firstly, the situation in early adulthood when they were last studied is examined. At this time, 60% of the cohort were still living at home, almost all with both parents. The remaining 40% were in institutions, mainly long-stay mental handicap hospitals. Out-of-home placement is associated with gender (maleness), challenging behaviour, and the absence of one or both parents. The present authors compare this with the situation 20 years later. The most significant change in this time is the expansion of the community sector, accounting for about half of the surviving cohort, with numbers still at home or in hospital correspondingly reduced. Almost half of the cohort had experienced little or no change in residential situation. On average, they were less intellectually and socially able than those who had moved into community provision.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability ResearchSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207