The Process of Transitioning Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities to Community Living in Manitoba: What Can We Learn from Community Agencies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of supporting persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) to move from an institution to homes in the community is complex. Staff who work in the community homes and provide care post-transition play an important role throughout the process, but limited research has examined the process from their perspective. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to explore the experiences of community agency staff, who supported adults with IDD with their transition from St.Amant’s Health and Transition Services (Winnipeg, Manitoba) and provide post-transition care in their new homes in the community. Twenty-six community agency staff (i.e., group home managers, coordinators or supervisors, and directors) participated in an online survey that examined three main areas: (a) the selection criteria St.Amant used to identify candidates for community transitions, (b) the process St.Amant used to implement community transitions, and (c) the support community agency staff received from St.Amant throughout the transition process. Overall, survey respondents evaluated the community transitions process positively. Further, community agency staff indicated they were supportive of future community transitions and recommend using the same selection criteria guided by individualized transition plans.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".