How can we support people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in enhancing their self-determination? 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
BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing recognition of the capacity of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities to make decisions and act accordingly, parents and professionals lack a sufficient understanding of the concept of self-determination for people with significant disabilities. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted across several scientific databases using keywords related to profound intellectual and multiple disabilities and self-determination. RESULTS: Current representations of self-determination in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities focus primarily on the possibility of decision-making. Several strategies for documenting self-determined behaviours were identified, including direct observation and video recording. The results highlight various means of enhancing self-determination, such as the use of technology and life stories. CONCLUSION: People with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities can be self-determined when given the opportunity, supported by adaptations suited to their capacities, and participate in social environments that prioritise their needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it