Enabling Formal and Natural Supports for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in British Columbia, Canada: Experiences of Three Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recognition of the importance of both formal and natural supports for adults with developmental disabilities, there is limited research on how organizations integrate these supports in the Canadian context. Using a collective case study design, this study explored how three organizations in British Columbia, Canada, facilitate the integration of formal and natural supports to improve the lives of adults with developmental disabilities. Data were collected through a comprehensive document review, interviews, and focus groups. The analysis was conducted in multiple phases, focusing initially on individual cases and then on cross-case themes. This research revealed both similarities and differences across three organizational approaches to integrating formal and natural supports for adults with developmental disabilities and their families. Key themes were identified, including the importance of relationships in this work, the creation of natural supports through formal supports and brokered community connections, systemic changes and innovative approaches, and the impact of funding models on organizational support. The findings highlight the critical need for organizations to build trust-based relationships between staff and the people they serve and to provide flexible support that adapts to changing needs and circumstances, facilitated by funders allowing for such flexibility. This study also underlines the value of formal supports in establishing natural networks and the necessity for cross-organizational partnerships to foster innovation and implement effective changes in the provision of services for people with developmental disabilities and their families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".