MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394764918 · doi:10.3390/disabilities4020019

Examining the Changes in Problem Behaviours and Communication of Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities after Transitioning from an Institutional Setting to the Community

2024· article· en· W4394764918 on OpenAlexafffund
Kayla Kostal, Maria Baranowski, Hygiea Casiano, Margherita Cameranesi, Lindsay McCombe, Shahin Shooshtari

Bibliographic record

VenueDisabilities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsSt.AmantUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMitacsWinnipeg Foundation
KeywordsMcNemar's testIntellectual disabilityPsychologyGerontologyDescriptive statisticsTest (biology)Developmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, the community transition process away from institutions has increased in the past 30–50 years among persons with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. This process, also known as “deinstitutionalization”, could potentially impact problem behaviors and communication. This study examined the impacts of community transitions on behavioural and communication outcomes in Canadians with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Data were collected using the Comprehensive Health Assessment Program and medical chart reviews. Descriptive, aggregate-level, and individual-level analyses were conducted for 32 adults who transitioned to community living. Descriptive analyses and the McNemar Chi-Square Test were conducted. Following community transitions, the study group experienced a significant decrease in problem behaviours and changes in communication. The study findings suggest that deinstitutionalization could provide effective strategies for addressing problem behaviors and fostering improvements in communication, promoting the well-being and quality of life of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207