Descriptive Study of Caseworkers’ Practices to Support the Development of Self‐Determination of Adults With Intellectual Disabilities
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
Abstract Few studies pertain to caseworkers and their practices for supporting the development of self‐determination of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). This research thus aims at describing the intervention practices of 12 caseworkers from Quebec (Canada). These caseworkers participated in five discussion groups over an 8‐month period. The data analysis helped identify a set of interventions conducted with people who have ID and with their environments. The majority of interventions are person‐specific, although natural and foster families are also targets for intervention. A number of person‐specific and environment‐specific variables influence these interventions. These variables concern people with ID, caseworkers, natural families, foster families, service organizations, and the community. The complexity of the intervention process is discussed. Recommendations are formulated for caseworkers, service organizations, and public decision makers.
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 | 0.304 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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