MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998805559 · doi:10.1177/104420730301300402

Disability Policy in Canada

2003· article· en· W1998805559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Disability Policy Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeMedical model of disabilitySocial model of disabilityPolicy developmentDisability studiesFoundation (evidence)Order (exchange)Political scienceLaw and economicsPublic administrationPsychologyPositive economicsSociologyLawEconomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last century there has been a shift from conceptualizing disability as a challenge to law and order, to viewing disability as a medical and/or economic deficit and then as a sociopolitical issue. In Canada, these changing conceptualizations of disability have been reflected in the development of disability policies, which form part of general Canadian social policies. Each model of disability captures a particular aspect of disability and focuses on particular goals, and each depicts a different account of what society owes people with disabilities. However, the lack of linkages between the models and their conceptual bases means that no one model can be used to guide disability policy development. Decision making about the goals of disability policy and the rights of people with disabilities requires the development of a normative foundation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it