Intellectual/developmental disabilities among people incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Ontario, Canada: Examining prevalence, health and correctional characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little research with people who experience intellectual/developmental disabilities and imprisonment. METHODS: The study linked health and correctional data to examine prevalence of intellectual/developmental disabilities and health and correctional characteristics among adults experiencing their first federal incarceration between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2011 (n = 9278) and two non-incarcerated groups (n = 10,086,802). RESULTS: The prevalence of intellectual/developmental disabilities was 2.1% in the incarcerated group and 0.9% in the non-incarcerated group. Before incarceration, those with, versus without, intellectual/developmental disabilities were at greater risk of traumatic brain injury, mental illness, and substance use disorders. While incarcerated, those with intellectual/developmental disabilities were more likely to incur serious institutional disciplinary charges. Post-incarceration, persons with intellectual/developmental disabilities were at greater risk of emergency department visits, and psychiatric and acute hospitalizations, than the non-incarcerated groups. CONCLUSIONS: People with intellectual/developmental disabilities are overrepresented in Canadian federal correctional institutions. The authors offer strategies to support people prior to, during, and post-incarceration.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".