A family systems perspective on supporting self‐determination in young adults with intellectual and developmental 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
BACKGROUND: This study explored the way families support self-determination in young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during life transitions. METHOD: Qualitative case studies were conducted with two Canadian families who participated in semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations every quarter for one year. Analyses were informed by family systems theory and self-determination theory. FINDINGS: Families considered the needs and preferences of the young adults with IDD, suggesting individualized approaches for balancing independence and protection. Families set short-term and long-term goals for increased independence, scaffolded the learning of new skills and collaborated on important choices. Collaboration occurred to the extent that all family members perceived agency in planning and implementing transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Families supported the young adults with IDD in their psychological needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy, which allowed them to experience self-determination. Findings have implications for supporting self-determination and transition planning in the family system.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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