Best Practices for Maintaining Housing with Intellectually Disabled John Howard Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intellectually disabled offenders are a heterogenous group with varying needs and abilities. Therefore, further study is required to meet the needs of this diverse population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The objective of this research is to create a sense of understanding in regards to housing and support services needed for criminalized or high needs individuals with intellectual disabilities who are housed at Independence Apartments, a federal halfway house run by the Edmonton John Howard Society. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders of the Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD) program at Independence Apartments. These stakeholders included professionals, PDD clients, and non PDD clients also housed at Independence Apartments. This presentation examines the effectiveness of having both PDD and non PDD programs running under one roof and explores the support service needs of the PDD clients housed at Independence Apartments. Preliminary results show that moving the PDD program to a separate facility would be beneficial for the PDD client group because the PDD clients tend to have difficulty following house rules and are often taken advantage of by the clients in the halfway house program. Discipline: Sociology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Michael Gulayets
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".