MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727058077 · doi:10.3109/13668250.2017.1310810

Scoping review of social participation of individuals with profound intellectual disability in adulthood: What can I do once I finish school?

2017· article· en· W2727058077 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyYoung adultIntellectual disabilityGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: After 21 years of age, adults with a profound intellectual disability (PID) have limited access to specialised services. An important concern that emerges is the potential decrease in their social participation. Knowing the benefits of social participation for adults with PID, it is relevant to address this issue.Method: This scoping review examined the literature on the social participation of people with PID in young adulthood and its influential factors.Results: Results suggest a significant lack of information concerning social participation of these adults. During adulthood, people with PID have currently two main choices to occupy their days: activities in daily activities centre and leisure in community organisation. Few options to maintain their capabilities are available, and this situation has significant impacts on young adults and their families.Conclusion: Future studies focusing specifically on adults with PID and their caregivers are needed to understand their reality when entering adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it