Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Participation in Decision Making: Ethical Considerations for Professional–Client Practice
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
In this article, the authors challenge professionals to re-examine assumptions about basic concepts and their implications in supporting adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The authors focus on decisions with significant implications, such as planning transition from school to adult life, changing living environments, and managing health issues. The analysis highlights important concepts that are less often addressed: autonomy, empowerment, participation in decision making, asymmetrical power, outer-directedness, and respect for persons. The authors suggest that professionals adopt a moral principle of respect for persons as an overarching guiding principle in their work with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The value of self-determination and person-centered planning processes are placed in the larger scope of ethical practice. The authors offer a set of practical considerations that encourage respect for these individuals by involving them in the decision-making process in situations that have a large impact on them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it