‘We're Not Really Into Helping, We're Into Being Useful’: Service Provider Practices That Support Belonging Opportunities in the Lives of Adults Labelled With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social inclusion focussed on belonging is increasingly emphasised by disability advocates and policymakers, yet belonging often remains absent for adults labelled with intellectual disabilities. People labelled with intellectual disabilities often rely on service providers to support their belonging. METHODS: In this critically informed ethnographic work, we draw on interviews with nine disability services leaders and prolonged participatory field explorations with five adults labelled with intellectual disabilities, their friends and support workers to explore how service providers support opportunities for belonging. RESULTS: Reflexive thematic analysis generated three themes: centering inclusion, belonging and rights; creating opportunities for self-exploration and 'dreaming'; and facilitating connections to people and place. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight supporting belonging as complex work that requires a relational understanding of autonomy, work environments that support reflexivity, and the redistribution of resources to allow for higher staff wages, larger individual support contracts and funding for staff training and post-secondary education.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".