Exploring experiential elements, strategies and outcomes of quality participation for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic scoping review
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
OBJECTIVE: Quality participation, defined as satisfying and enjoyable involvement, is one of the most valued life outcomes for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. To broaden understandings of quality participation, our review explored participation experiences of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. METHOD: Utilising an established systematic scoping review methodology, data were collected using three search tools (peer-reviewed databases, grey literature databases and Google). Inclusion criteria required that children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and/or their proxies provided descriptions of quality participation experiences in any life domain. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. Quality participation strategies (30 total) and outcomes (8 total) were categorised according to six experiential elements (autonomy, belongingness, challenge, engagement, mastery and meaning). CONCLUSION: Findings provide novel insight for building quality experiences across current and future participation initiatives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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