Mediators of Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults with mild intellectual disability (MID) often rely on professionals and family for support, giving caregivers the power to control many aspects of their daily lives This extends to research, where investigators wanting to include adults with MID must seek the cooperation of caregivers. This chapter features data from a qualitative study conducted in London, Ontario, that explored independence, sexuality, and social relationships in 15 adults with MID, six family caregivers, and six professionals. Key findings discussed here include the ways in which caregivers influence socio-sexual relationships in adults with MID, the challenges to including adults with MID in research, and the experiences of adults with MID as study participants. These findings contribute new insights to the disability literature that explores research inclusion in adults with MID, as well as the nature of socio-sexual life among these adults, whose first-hand experiences are rarely included in qualitative 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 | 0.022 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 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; 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".