Obstacles to the transition to adulthood of people with severe to profound intellectual disability and potential solutions: Perspectives of professionals in one region of Quebec
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: Planning the transition to adulthood of youth with severe to profound intellectual disability (ID) requires professionals from different institutions to work together. However, there are few studies in the literature that focus on professionals involved in this transition. METHOD: This study documented factors impacting the transition to adulthood of youth with severe to profound ID and potential solutions from the perspective of professionals from different sectors involved in transition planning, using individual interviews. RESULTS: The absence of clear markers to guide professionals, lack of system navigator and recognition of rehabilitation potential of individuals with severe to profound ID were some of the obstacles experienced by professionals. They felt helpless facing the distress of families. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the factors that, from the professionals' perspective, impact this transition could help to foster intersectoral collaboration between the many professionals involved and guide future initiatives to develop relevant and realistic solutions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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