Parental expectations of residential immersive life skills programs for youth with disabilities and their perception of youth changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored parents' expectations before their youth with a disability attended a Residential Immersive Life Skills (RILS) program, and perceptions of youth change over the following 12 months. Understanding expectations is important because parents play a key role in shaping their youth's ongoing development and future hopes when they return home. METHODS: A secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with 13 parents was conducted using a recurrent cross-sectional analysis approach at three time-points: before youth attended a RILS program, and three and 12 months post-program. RESULTS: Before the RILS program, most parents focused on "concrete" life skills (e.g., self-care, budgeting), with some hoping for more youth self-awareness. After three months, many expectations were exceeded, leading some parents to re-evaluate their youth's future. By 12 months, expectations had evolved further, although some parents expressed disappointment in perceived lack of change. Many parental expectations had been initially implicit and unstated. CONCLUSIONS: Exploring parental expectations of RILS programs is critical, as parents can both enhance and diminish their youth's personal growth and future aspirations. Parents should understand how RILS programs may (or may not) change both the youth and the family dynamic upon return home.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".