The Benefits of Supporting the Autonomy of Individuals with Mild Intellectual Disabilities: An Experimental Study
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: The benefits of autonomy support with the general population have been demonstrated numerous times. However, little research has been conducted to verify if these benefits apply to people with special needs. METHODS: The goal of the study was to examine whether autonomy support (AS) can foster the sense of autonomy of people with a mild intellectual disabilities (MIDs) and improve their experience while engaging in an important but unpleasant learning activity. This experiment compares the effects of two contexts: with and without AS. All participants (N = 51) had a mild intellectual disability and were recruited from rehabilitation centres. RESULTS: Compared to participants in the control group, participants in the AS group tended to experience greater autonomy satisfaction and tended to perceive more value to the activity. They were also significantly more engaged in it, and they experienced a steeper decrease in anxiety over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the benefits of AS extend to individuals with mild intellectual disability.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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