The impact of four family support programmes for people with a disability in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This article reports on an evaluation of four family support programmes in Ireland\nfor families of people with a physical or an intellectual disability or autism. The focus of the evaluation,\nwhich took place within a year of the programmes’ completion, was on establishing\nwhether the programmes had an impact on families’ capacity to effectively support their family\nmember. Method: A mixed-method design was used, which included a survey (n ¼ 38) and interviews\n(n ¼ 19) with participating family members. Ethical approval for the study was given by the\nrelevant university ethics committee. Results: Findings suggest that participation in the programmes\nenhanced knowledge, attitudes, and competencies of families and also impacted their\nability to advocate for their family member and to connect with the community. Discussion and\nconclusions: Whilst outcomes were overwhelmingly positive, further follow-up would be\nrequired to ascertain if sustained capacity building took place.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".