Improving transition to adulthood for adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Proactive developmental and systems perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how family physicians can contribute to a piece of the journey of improving quality-of-life outcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) when they undergo the transition from adolescence to adulthood. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The "Primary care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines" literature review and interdisciplinary input. MAIN MESSAGE: Family physicians should be proactive in anticipating and supporting the transition of people with IDD from adolescence to adulthood. Interventions should be guided by a developmental perspective regarding the person with IDD and a life-cycle approach to supporting families. Family physicians also have a role in helping people with IDD and their families to navigate successfully through changing community-based support systems in their province, especially health care and social services systems. Therefore, family physicians should be aware of current services available in their regions. CONCLUSION: Community and team-based family physicians can optimize the quality of life of people with IDD and their families by adopting a proactive developmental and systems approach to preparing youth with IDD for adulthood. In doing so, they exemplify the 4 principles of family medicine.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".