Parents labelled with Intellectual Disability: Position of the IASSID SIRG on Parents and Parenting with Intellectual Disabilities
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 On August 5th, 2006, the third meeting of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities (IASSID) Special Interest Research Group (SIRG) on Parents and Parenting with Intellectual Disabilities was convened in Maastricht, The Netherlands, coinciding with the 2nd International Congress of IASSID‐Europe. The SIRG Parents and Parenting with Intellectual Disabilities membership includes scholars from a number of countries including the United States, Canada, England, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. These scholars come from a range of academic and professional disciplines, including sociology, psychology, education, nursing, social work and occupational therapy. Method This position paper developed by the Parenting SIRG brings into sharp relief the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted by the General Assembly in December 2006. The convention affirms the right of persons with disabilities to marry and found a family (Article 23, (1)(a)). Further, states parties are bound to ‘take effective action and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships…’ (Article 23 (1)), and ‘…render appropriate assistance to persons with disabilities in the performance of their child‐rearing responsibilities’ (Article 23 (2)). Results This position paper synthesizes messages from research about the challenges that parents labelled with intellectual disability face, and how they can be assisted in their parenting role.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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