A Halifax case study that offers an alternative history of care provided by local authorities under the 1913 <scp>M</scp>ental <scp>D</scp>eficiency <scp>A</scp>ct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary The history of care is still largely the history of institutions. We also need to understand the mix of services that were available. It is important to explore how different services shaped the experiences of people living with learning disabilities and their families. Summary Institutions, and their problems, have traditionally dominated learning disability histories. We know far more about what happened in areas where councils established and/or enthusiastically used local institutions than other places. Local authorities less committed to institutional care must have relied more on family and other carers. This may have signalled a more positive, even inclusive, approach to caring for people with learning disabilities. The Halifax case study provides some evidence to support this conclusion, but limited provision and reliance on distant facilities also permitted the neglect, and even abuse, of individuals in ways that resonate with recent scandals in the care sector. Note: for accuracy, this study uses the historically correct terminology with sincere apologies for any distress this may inadvertently cause.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".