Profiles and correlates of aggressive behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities
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: Despite the heterogeneity in aggressive behaviours observed among individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), little attention has been paid to the identification of typologies of aggression among individuals with mild or moderate ID and their associated factors. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to identify profiles of aggressive behaviour and their psychosocial correlates. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study of 296 adults with mild or moderate ID, information was gathered through interviews with the ID participants, their case manager and a significant other. Client files were also reviewed. RESULTS: Multiple correspondence analysis followed by hierarchical cluster analysis generated six distinct profiles of aggressive behaviour in this sample. The 'violent' group clearly stood out as lacking social and vocational involvement, having more severe mental health problems, high levels of impulsivity and antisocial tendencies compared with all other groups. DISCUSSION: The identification of distinct profiles of aggressive behaviour offers new possibilities for studying risk factors and eventually targeting specific risk prevention strategies.
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 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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