How to facilitate transition to adulthood? Innovative solutions from parents of young adults with profound 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: At age 21, access to specialised services for youth with profound intellectual disability is reduced. Few studies have focused on parents' views concerning potential solutions to ease the transition to adulthood, and most existing solutions target young adults with less severe intellectual disability. The aim of this study is to propose realistic solutions to meet the needs of young adults with profound intellectual disability and their families during and after the transition to adulthood. METHOD: Using a descriptive qualitative design, two individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 parents. RESULTS: Ideas for innovative solutions included responses to parents' informational, material, intellectual and emotional needs during and after transition period. The majority of these solutions involve knowledge sharing, improved inter-institutional collaboration and social participation of young adults, and offering parents emotional support. CONCLUSION: Some solutions could be implemented within existing transition planning programs, based on their strengths and limitations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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