MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416827703 · doi:10.1111/jppi.70027

The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Opposes the Human Cost From Military Conflict: A Position Statement

2025· article· en· W4416827703 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Roth, David P. Treanor, Tamar Heller, Ivan Brown, Peter E. Langdon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementIntellectual disabilityPrinciple of legalityDignityLegitimacyAssociation (psychology)Position (finance)Human rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IASSIDD) is an international group of researchers, clinicians, students, parents, carers, and self‐advocates that actively promotes worldwide research and information exchange about intellectual and developmental disabilities. IASSIDD does not speak to the legitimacy or legality of any ongoing war or armed conflict. The purpose of this article is to promote respect for the human dignity of all persons with intellectual and other developmental disabilities, and their families, who find themselves in such situations. Therefore, the aim of this article is to outline the impact that military conflict has upon people with developmental disabilities, and their families, and to introduce the IASSIDD position statement that opposes the human cost from military conflict. During military conflict, many children and adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities, and their families, experience marked suffering and maltreatment. This occurs due to an inability to access healthcare, education, and rehabilitation, and is also due to serious physical injuries, starvation, psychological trauma, and of course death, caused directly by conflict. This group is disproportionately affected due to preexisting vulnerabilities, and they are likely to experience human rights violations. Challenging behaviour is likely to increase, and quality of life decrease, during conflict. Addressing need during conflict requires a multifaceted approach that includes humanitarian aid, psychological support, social support, rehabilitation services, caregiver support, and coordinated international efforts and advocacy. There has been too little research about the experiences of people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities, and their families, during military conflict. We know little about the number of refugees with intellectual and other developmental disabilities fleeing, nor do we have robust data about the number of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who die, during military conflict. The basic human rights of people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities, and their families, are violated during military conflict; this is contrary to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2475 as these rights are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Millennium Goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207