Identification and Analysis of Factors Contributing to the Reduction in Seclusion and Restraint for a Population with Intellectual Disability
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: A cohort of 11 patients with an intellectual disability and a psychiatric diagnosis present severe behavioural disorders in psychiatric hospital of Quebec in 2009. Control-measure use for this clientele has now been reduced. How do management personnel, families and care teams explain the changes? What clinical interventions did management and care providers implement that contributed to the reduction? METHOD: A retrospective case study was conducted. Five focus groups were held with people involved in their care, and the patient files were examined. RESULTS: The factors contributing to this change were the cohesion of the care providers, the involvement of the families and the efforts to determine the function of the behaviour. IMPLICATIONS: This study may inspire other care teams to try new approaches in dealing with patients with severe behavioural disorders. Also, the model of factors and interventions supporting a reduction in seclusion and restraint measures may inspire future studies.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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