Quality of Life: Its Application to Persons With Intellectual Disabilities and Their Families—Introduction and Overview
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
Abstract The authors provide an overview of quality of life (QoL) conceptualization in the field of intellectual disabilities (ID), provide background information, and set an organizing framework for presenting concepts and concrete ideas for applying QoL. This framework is useful for three broad categories of application in the field of ID that form the application of QoL to individuals, groups of individuals, and to families. QoL thus can be used as a sensitizing notion that gives a sense of reference and guidance from the individual's perspective, focusing on the person and the individual's environment and provides a framework for conceptualizing, measuring, and applying the QoL construct. The applications also frame evaluation strategies for QoL research. The authors conclude that there is a need to identify relevant QoL evidence from the literature in a proactive way, and to ensure that it is methodologically sound, provides both quantitative and qualitative data, represents inter‐ and intra‐individual variability, and illustrates changes over both the lifespan and across cultural settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.316 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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