Developmental Perspectives on the Study of Persons with Intellectual Disability
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
Developmental approaches provide inclusive, universal, and methodologically rigorous frameworks for studying persons with intellectual disability (ID). This is an exceptionally heterogeneous group with regard to etiology, genotype, and phenotype that simply shares the traditional diagnostic criteria, typically a score of two standard deviations below the population mean of 100 on standardized IQ tests and deficits in adaptive behavior. We trace the foundational, conceptual, and methodological roots of developmental approaches and highlight ways that these and more recent iterations continue to be central to advances in the increasingly nuanced study of persons with ID. This work is premised on the consideration of specific etiological groupings and subgroupings across and between different domains of functioning within the context of familial and complex environments throughout the life span. We highlight the potential contributions of advances in behavioral methodologies, genomics, and neuroscience when considered within universal and hierarchic frameworks based on development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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