MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082082525 · doi:10.1080/09638280500052898

Vision needs of people with intellectual disability in residential facilities and community-based homes for independent living

2005· article· en· W2082082525 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard Isralowitz, Michal Madar, Alexander Reznik

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAdministration for Community LivingInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityGerontologyVisual impairmentIntervention (counseling)Eye careQuality of life (healthcare)Sample (material)MedicineActivities of daily livingPsychologyOptometryNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the visual problems of people with intellectual disability in residential and community-based facilities. METHOD: A purposive sample of 146 male and female adults, aged 21 and older, living in residential facilities and community-based homes in the southern region of Israel was used to assess and compare vision problems. RESULTS: Among those screened, 77% were found to have a visual problem. Only astigmatism was found to differentiate the two groups. Those living in the community, particularly men, were more likely to have astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the eye care needs of people with intellectual disability is a difficult process. People with intellectual disability, however, need ophthalmological and optometric screening to determine whether they can benefit from such intervention, including cataract removal and eyeglasses, to improve their quality of life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207