MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051579450 · doi:10.1080/19315861003650558

Support Needs of Individuals With Mild and Moderate Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviors

2010· article· en· W2051579450 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Lamoureux-Hébert, Diane Morin, Anne G. Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network
FundersMount Allison University
KeywordsPsychologyIntellectual disabilityAngerDevelopmental psychologySocial supportChallenging behaviourClinical psychologyExploratory researchSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207