10.1177/0145445503251604 ARTICLEBEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / April 2003McGill et al. / SETTING EVE TS AND CHALLENGING BEHAVIOR Staff Reports of Setting Events Associated With Challenging Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified the setting events reported by caregivers as more and less likely to be asso-ciated with challenging behaviors of people with intellectual disabilities. Sixty-five staff work-ing with 22 individuals were interviewed using a setting event inventory. Some setting events (e.g., being in a crowded room) were reported as strongly associated with challenging behavior, some (e.g., one-to-one support) as strongly associated with its absence. Some (e.g., day of week) were reported to be largely “inert”; many were idiosyncratically associated with occurrence, absence, or inertness. Different categories of setting events contributed different amounts to reported variation in challenging behavior. The inventory described here, or modified versions, may help identify relationships between setting events and challenging behaviors. The relation-ships reported in this study suggest ways in which service provision might be modified to help prevent challenging behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.919 | 0.821 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".