“Having friends is like having marshmallows”: Perspectives of transition‐aged youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities on friendship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature emphasizes that friendships are essential to youths' successful transition to and adjustment in adulthood. Few studies have explored the friendships of transition-aged youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), and even fewer include youths' own perspectives. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of transition-aged youths with IDD regarding their own experiences of friendship. METHOD: A subset of video-recorded data of 21 interviews with seven participants (20-24 years) was extracted from a larger study for secondary analysis. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by constructivist grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Three themes were revealed: meanings of friends and friendship, deepening self-knowledge and negotiating in(ter)dependence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings expand existing knowledge about friendships of transition-aged youths with IDD. Findings can potentially inform development of new services or enhancement of existing services aimed at facilitating transition to adulthood for youths with IDD and point to key areas for future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".