Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governments of the Provinces and the Territories in Canada have pursued the policy of de-institutionalization for developmental disabilities based on the concept of normalization. This kind of policy has to be followed by the service programs which may facilitate developmental disabilities to an area life. There have been no concrete alternatives for developmental disabilities in South Korea. But this study will show the desirable direction for a developmental disabilities policy in this country. It is also assumed that this study will illustrate from the Canadian experience what the Korean state should take into consideration and what it may predict when it executes the developmental disabilities policy. This study examined the philosophical and legal aspects of the policy and the environments in the process of developing the developmental disabilities policy in Ontario from 1970 to 2000. The policy for developmental disabilities in Ontario could secure its position to some degree despite a lot of controversies and difficulties. After all, this development resulted from the conviction of de-institutionalization and the concept of normalization which have buttressed the policy position to overcome those difficulties. A lesson which gained from the review of the developmental disabilities policy was the close cooperation for the program between the concerned authorities and the university. They joined together to promote the policy which could accrue to each other. This was made possible because the policy decision was based on the scientific planning and implementation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".