Living circumstances of children and adults with mental retardation or developmental disabilities in the united states, canada, england and wales, and australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to collate evidence to describe where people with mental retardation or developmental disabilities live in five developed countries: United States, Canada, England, Wales, and Australia. Family homes are important dwelling places for people with mental retardation. They are the home of the great majority of children with mental retardation and a considerable proportion of adults with mental retardation. The likelihood of placement outside the family home increases with adulthood and progressively as people age. Adults with mental retardation live in a wide variety of settings, with formal residential provision frequently dependent on the arrangements that the authorities responsible for providing service support have chosen to make. There has been a considerable move away from accommodating people in large segregated and geographically isolated institutions in the countries considered. However, the current range of accommodation includes much with a distinctively different character to the homes where other citizens live. Many people still live in larger groups than would be ordinarily found in typical homes and this may necessitate departure from the architectural norm. In all of the countries considered, there has been a recent trend towards small community settings, compatible with typical housing architecture. This appears furthest advanced in the U.S. but is discernible elsewhere. Availability of residential services at a national level varies between 100 and 155 places per 100,000 total population. Regional variation within countries is even greater. In no case is the national availability considered adequate to meet the demand arising from changing need or expectations. MRDD Research Reviews 7:115-121, 2001. (c) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".