Childhood experience, family support and parenting by people 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
BACKGROUND: Parents with intellectual disability, like all other parents, are embedded in networks of capability-enhancing and/or capability-inhibiting relationships. This study investigated links between how parents with intellectual disability experienced their upbringing, continuity and discontinuity in familial relationships, and their assessments of their own parenting. METHOD: Structured interviews, incorporating scales and open-ended questions, were conducted with 91 parents in receipt of specialist services for people with intellectual disability, including 82 mothers and 9 fathers. RESULTS: Most participants (81%) had experienced at least one form of childhood abuse or household adversity. Participants who recalled a more positive upbringing, including less adversity and more parental care, tended to have stronger support networks and reported greater parenting role satisfaction and emotional warmth in their interactions with their own children. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the need to understand parenting by people with intellectual disability in biographical and relational context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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