Friendships and Intimate Relationships among People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Thematic Synthesis
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 purpose of this thematic synthesis was to review qualitative studies on perspectives of persons with intellectual disabilities regarding friendships and intimate relationships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted, including studies published between 2004 and 2014, involving participants 14 years of age or older, who had intellectual disabilities, and participated in focus groups or interviews. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Three master themes were identified: (i) How do I know someone is my friend? (ii) How do I know someone is my boyfriend or girlfriend? and (iii) What helps and hinders relationships? CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how people with intellectual disabilities describe relationships, and being aware of factors that support and impede relationships, will aid stakeholders in developing training, policies, programmes and services. Knowledge translation of research that focuses on strategies aimed at supporting relationships is crucial to affect change in applied settings and improve quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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