MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130137759 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-48.3.209

Adaptive Behavior Among Adults With Intellectual Disabilities and Its Relationship to Community Independence

2010· article· en· W2130137759 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Woolf, Christine Merman Woolf, Thomas Oakland

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual and developmental disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive behaviorIndependence (probability theory)PsychologyIntellectual disabilityResidenceDevelopmental psychologyIndependent livingGerontologySocial psychologyDemographyMedicineStatisticsPsychiatrySociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined relationships between general adaptive behavior and the degree of community independence displayed by 272 adults with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System--Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison & Oakland, 2003 ) was completed for each participant and compared with actual levels of work and residential independence. The participants' adaptive behavior accounted for 40%-43% of the variance in their work and residence independence. The results from this field-based study indicated that participants who displayed higher levels of adaptive behavior generally worked and lived more independently. Participants with the lowest general adaptive behavior required the highest degree of community supports. Implications of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations68
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual and developmental disabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207