Typology of Community Living Transitions for People with Intellectual Disabilities: Are Current Experience in Rehabilitation Centers Tied to the Best Practices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the beginning of the deinstitutionalization of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), few studies have been carried out on the community living transitions process. Policies require to offer hosting services which respect the ideology of “seeking a home,” in accordance with the choices of individuals with ID. The involvement of individuals with ID in their own community living transition and concerted planning are considered to be part of the best practices. This study provides a portrait of community living transitions within rehabilitation centers. The aim was to develop new insights into the experience of community living transitions for people who have an ID. Specifically, this study identifies (1) a typology of community living transitions and (2) the gaps between best practices, desired practices, and current practices from the educators' viewpoint. Educators (n = 19) were randomly selected to participate in three focus groups and share their support experiences during community living transitions. Qualitative content analyses identified a typology of community living transitions. One out of the six types of transitions identified offered favorable conditions for a transition that involves the person with ID in his or her own transition and collaborative planning (prepared). The other types of transitions (last minute, explosive, turnkey, waiting room) all offered fewer opportunities for the person with ID to be involved in the transition process. Educators identified the characteristics of an ideal community living transition (as if it were myself). Gaps between the participants' experiences and best practices were identified, particularly regarding the involvement of individuals with ID in decisions concerning their own community living transition. The organization of the hosting services and a lack of accommodation resources influence the transition preparation time, the amount of collaborative planning, and the level of involvement of the person with ID. Implications of the gaps between experiences and best practices are identified.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".