Educational inclusion and satisfaction of families of students with intellectual disabilities: a bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bibliometric study scrutinizes the corpus of scientific output within the Web of Science pertaining to familial satisfaction among parents raising children with intellectual disabilities, focusing specifically on the milieu of educational inclusion. The analysis discerns a discernible ascension in scholarly interest in this domain, encapsulating 77 papers emanating from 75 journals, incorporating an aggregate of 3,497 cited references. Our investigation delineated 354 researchers across 39 nations, underscoring the transnational purview of this scholarly endeavor. The United States emerged as the pre-eminent contributor, with Canada and the United Kingdom following suit. Collaboration on an international scale was notably led by the US, with the UK and Australia trailing in tandem. Prominent institutions were identified for their scholarly output; the University of Kansas led with four papers, followed closely by Monash University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California Riverside, each contributing three papers. Of particular note, the University of Kansas accrued 250 global citations (TGCS). A total of 75 journals were encompassed in this study. The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research emerged as the vanguard with four published papers, closely trailed by Child Care Health and Development and Exceptional Children. Notably, the latter boasted the highest impact factor (JCR = 4.09; Q1). In summation, this review proffers a meticulous and expansive overview of extant scholarship concerning the experiences of families rearing children with disabilities within the inclusive education framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.070 | 0.121 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".