The transition to adulthood of young adults with IDD: Parents’ joint projects
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
INTRODUCTION: Parents have found the transition to adulthood for their sons or daughters with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) particularly challenging. The literature has not examined how parents work together and with others in face of this transition nor has it highlighted parental goals in this process. This study used a perspective based on joint, goal-direct action to describe the projects that Canadian parents engaged in together and with others relative to this transition. METHODS: Using the qualitative action-project method, joint projects between parents and with others were identified from their conversations and followed for 6 months. FINDINGS: Three groups of projects were described: equipping the young adult for adult life, connecting for personal support and managing day-to-day while planning for the future. CONCLUSIONS: Parents act together and with others relative to the transition to adulthood of their young adult children with IDD. These projects are complex and differ in goals, steps, resources and emotional regulation and motivation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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