Interventions Targeting Anxiety in Individuals with Learning Disabilities: A Scoping Review
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
The current scoping review synthesizes the literature on interventions targeting anxiety in individuals with a learning disability (LD). Specifically, the review identifies types of interventions, outcomes, and barriers to or facilitators of implementation of interventions by school staff. The available literature was analyzed using a descriptive numerical and qualitative thematic analysis. A total of 22 peer-reviewed articles comprising 21 studies were included. Three types of interventions based on focus, goals, and intervention methodology were identified: therapeutic, academic, and combined approaches. Four intervention outcomes emerged: a decrease in anxiety, improvements in learning and academic performance, positive changes in self-perception, and increased social skills. Barriers and facilitators to successful intervention implementation included components that contributed to the outcome (e.g. individualizing intervention or having key stakeholders involved). Overall, however, studies lacked details regarding implementation of interventions, outside of the research context.
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 | 0.027 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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