Strategies to Promote the Inclusion of Young Adults With Developmental Disabilities in Community-Based Health Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss strategies to promote the inclusion of people with developmental disabilities (DDs) in qualitative community-based research studies. Strategies were applied in three projects conducted between 2012 and 2017 that addressed issues of socioeconomic challenges, discrimination, and exclusion of children and young adults with developmental disabilities (YADD). Strategies included partnership with community organizations; inclusion of YADD, family caregivers (FCs), and service providers in advisory committees (ACs); and strategies to accommodate YADD. As part of our contribution, we discuss issues of invisibility and exclusion of individuals with DDs who have "low" functioning capacities. There is a need to review studies sampling inclusion criteria as they may constitute a barrier for participation. Preference for sampling "high" functioning individuals may reinforce exclusion in research, and replicate broader patterns of socioeconomic exclusion of individuals with disabilities. Our discussion of inclusive research is informed by critical disability studies and the underlying principle "nothing about us without us."
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 | 0.570 | 0.500 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".