Everyday mobile/assistive technology supporting adults with intellectual &/or developmental disabilities in the community setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve pilot project participants with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities used mobile devices (smartwatch and smartphone technology) and individualized apps focused on time management, coping, budgeting, exercise, and safety, to support independence and community engagement. Ten participants with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (IDD) and five front-line Coordinators participated in post-project focus groups in which common patterns of responses and salient findings were noted, including the emergence of a peer technology expert. Five themes emerged from focus group data, which were then developed into five broad technological, clinical, and methodological recommendations for phase two, that will follow this pilot project. Duration data showed variable change in pre-post duration of supports; related changes were part of these recommendations. The small sample size and current pilot study status suggests cautious interpretation and application of results beyond the immediate context of this project; however, this pilot project has developed a foundation for a more comprehensive intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".