MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390947939 · doi:10.1177/17446295241227123

Vulnerabilities, care, and exposure to illness risks among people with intellectual disabilities in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021)

2024· article· en· W4390947939 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Ferreira Lima Silva, Éverton Luís Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intellectual disabilityPandemicGovernment (linguistics)MedicinePsychologyPsychiatryGerontologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with intellectual disabilities, especially those who require care, are among the most affected by severe forms of COVID-19 and COVID-19- related deaths. In this study we investigated how care needs and other vulnerabilities influence the possibility COVID-19 infection among people with intellectual disabilities in Brazil. This paper reports on a descriptive quantitative study using an online questionnaire answered by 2,800 respondents with intellectual disabilities over the age of sixteen. Individuals with a greater need for care had higher frequencies of positive COVID-19 diagnoses (6.5%-8%) and were approximately six times more likely to be infected by family members than those who did not have COVID-19 in the family. There is a need for specific government measures to protect people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers, because those with greater care needs are the most exposed to risks of contagion and sickness and have potential vectors of infection among family members and caregivers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207