Numeracy for adults with Down syndrome: it's a matter of quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numeracy development is widely accepted as critical for adults in the general community which is equally the case for adults with Down syndrome. This paper reports some of the findings of a study including the research question: What is the justification for numeracy development for adults with Down syndrome? Investigating this question led to the search for a framework to support the ongoing development of numeracy. METHOD: The research used a case study methodology. Five adults were observed and interviewed in two contexts each. The data were analyzed to identify links to the quality of life model. RESULTS: The research illustrates how a quality of life approach can be used to justify and guide the lifelong development of numeracy. Data from the case studies linked numeracy to quality of life under the principles of personal contexts, variability, life-span perspective, values, choices and personal control, perceptions and self-image. CONCLUSIONS: The principles of quality of life can provide a framework for the development of numeracy in the context of adulthood and Down syndrome. Preparation for the numeracy needs of a long and satisfying adulthood should begin in early childhood, continue in schools with the teaching of underlying mathematics concepts and skills, and be modified and refined throughout adulthood by the use of a numeracy development plan. Carers and professionals interacting in the contexts need to adopt a teaching role for numeracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".