Pertinence d’accompagner des adultes avec troubles du spectre autistique et déficience intellectuelle profonde en Snoezelen®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude comparative « avant-après » questionne la pertinence de l’utilisation du Snoezelen® auprès de personnes adultes atteintes de troubles du spectre autistique (TSA) et présentant une déficience intellectuelle profonde associée. Le degré d’investissement sensoriel des activités proposées, le degré d’autonomie et les autostimulations de quatre patients associant TSA et déficience intellectuelle profonde sont évalués à l’aide d’une échelle de type Likert en salle Snoezelen® pour huit critères soient cinq types d’explorations sensorielles (tactile, vibratoire, vestibulaire, auditif, visuel) et trois capacités spécifiques (détente, conscience de soi à travers un miroir, déplacements) sur deux ans. Les conclusions montrent un meilleur investissement des activités proposées, une augmentation des autonomies et une diminution des autostimulations au sein de la salle Snoezelen®.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".