Meta-analysis of deinstitutionalisation adaptive behaviour outcomes: Research and clinical implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis examined the effects of deinstitutionalisation on adaptive behaviour outcomes in persons with intellectual disability. The need for an updated review in this area is reflected by recent policy shifts in community care practices and the international status of deinstitutionalisation efforts. METHOD: Twenty-three studies were compared using standardised mean effect sizes across 5 demographic, 4 methodological, and 1 outcome variable. RESULTS: Moderate habilitative gains were found in 75% of adaptive behaviour domains. A weighted linear multiple regression revealed that larger effect sizes were significantly predicted by sample size and research design. Disability level also moderated the extent to which sample size affected the magnitude of effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: These results are discussed in relation to the implications they have for community services for persons with intellectual disability. The difficulties in accurately comparing studies with dissimilar procedures and contexts are also outlined.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it