“If I Died Tomorrow, I’d Die Knowing That My Son Is Safe, Loved by the People in Here, Well Cared for, and Happy”: Exploring Maternal Perspectives on Community Living for Their Adult Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is abundant evidence that, following community transition or deinstitutionalization, persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities experience improvements in quality of life and well-being. However, very little research in this area has been conducted in the Canadian context. In this qualitative study, individual in-depth interviewing was used to explore the perspectives of eight Canadian mothers of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities regarding their children’s residences and access to services after community transition. Within an interpretive description framework, narrative data collected during semi-structured interviews with participating mothers were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three main themes portraying a combination of positive and negative maternal perspectives emerged from the data: (1) quality of care, (2) quality of life, and (3) health status and behavior. The study findings bring attention to the importance of offering individualized community living options that are person- and family-centered to all 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".