Support Needs of Individuals With Mild and Moderate Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examined relationships between support needs assessed with the French version of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS; Thompson et al., 2004) and challenging behaviors as assessed with the Scales of Independent Behavior--Revised (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996 Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F. and Hill, B. K. 1996. “SIB-R”. In Scales of Independent Behavior--Revised: Comprehensive manual, Chicago: Riverside. [Google Scholar]). The Sample included 191 persons between 16 and 75 year old, with either a mild or moderate intellectual disability. Using correlation and inferential analysis, it was found overall that high frequency in challenging behaviors was related to a need for greater support intensity, particularly social support, and maintenance of emotional well-being. The findings highlighted the importance of establishing specific support measures that target social skills, receptive and expressive communication, and the management of stress and anger.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".