MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893531342 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.16754635

Assessing Technology Needs for Residential Autonomy: Considering Individual and Environmental Context

2024· article· en· W6893531342 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchGeneral partnershipRespite careIndependent livingAssistive technologyActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residential autonomy poses a challenge for individuals with intellectual disability (ID; Carey et al., 2022), autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Longuépée et al., 2019) or physical disability (PD; Kingsnorth et al., 2015). However, living in autonomous housing would enhance the well-being of individuals with disabilities and their relatives (INESSS, 2019). The aim of this qualitative study is to identify barriers, strategies and needs related to residential autonomy, as well as collected suggestions for assistive technology tools. For this qualitative research, five individuals with disability, three relatives and 19 care providers and managers were asked about the main challenges, strategies, and needs observed in the activities of daily living (ADLs), and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), including transportation, emotional management, safety, and environmental control. The results of this first phase allow the co-development of technological tools that will support individual autonomy, in addition to increasing their social involvement in partnership with field experts. L'autonomie résidentielle représente un défi pour les personnes atteintes d'une déficience intellectuelle (Carey et al., 2022), d'un trouble du spectre de l'autisme (Longuépée et al., 2019) ou d'une déficience physique (Kingsnorth et al., 2015). Cependant, résider dans des habitations autonomes pourrait augmenter le bien-être des individus et de leurs proches (INESSS, 2019). Cette étude qualitative a pour objectif de décrire les obstacles, les stratégies et les besoins relatifs à l'autonomie résidentielle, ainsi que d'obtenir des suggestions concernant les outils d'assistance technologique à développer pour promouvoir l'autonomie. Cinq individus en situation de handicap, trois proches aidants et 19 intervenants et gestionnaires ont été consultés pour fournir des informations sur les obstacles, les stratégies et les besoins observés dans les activités de la vie quotidienne, dont l'utilisation des transports, la gestion émotionnelle, la sécurité et le contrôle de l'environnement. Les résultats de cette première phase permettent le co-développement d'outils technologiques soutenant l'autonomie et la participation sociale en partenariat des experts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207