Content of Personalized Socioeducational Programs for Adults with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities. The Risk of Restricting Perspectives in Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Supporting individuals with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) in the intricate pattern of their relationships with their physical and social environment undoubtedly represents the main challenge that faces those closely involved with them, and this applies to individuals of all ages, including adults. In an effort to find out more about the priorities applied in the support of adolescents and adults with multiple disabilities in French‐speaking Switzerland, we have analyzed the content of personalized programs (PP's) with particular attention to the long‐term objectives. The programs of 58 individuals with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (aged 16–55) were analyzed under conditions of strict anonymity. They had been selected using a stratified random sampling process. The content was analyzed in terms of theme and category in order to identify and quantify the content of the objectives and their number. The results indicate an average of 10–11 objectives per person. The number of objectives falls as the individuals reach adulthood. The programs of adolescents who attend day schools contain significantly more objectives that those of young people in residential schools. It was apparent in all the programs that less importance is attached to emotional, conceptual, and cognitive aspects. The results highlight the under‐investment in some functioning spheres and reveal a restriction of perspectives in the programs of adults with PIMD. Several interpretations are possible. Lines of action have been identified in order to support a life‐span perspective and break through the current barriers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".