Influence of the organizational environment on challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities: Professionals’ views
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: We examined the influence of the organizational environment on challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities to increase understanding of the quality of support services for people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: Twenty-one professionals and managers from four specialized Dutch disability service organizations were interviewed. Data were analysed with a grounded theory approach, using Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory as a sensitizing frame. RESULTS: The organizational environment (i.e., vision, values, sufficient resources) is related via the support service (i.e., providing stability, constant awareness) to residents' challenging behaviour and is also linked directly to challenging behaviour (e.g., living environment, values). Organizations are restricted by national regulations, negative media attention and changing societal values, which negatively influence quality of support. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a supportive organizational environment for staff, who in turn can provide quality support services to residents with demanding care needs, was found to prevent challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it