MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011048872 · doi:10.1177/1044207314533384

The 2010 Chilean National Disability Law

2014· article· en· W2011048872 on OpenAlexaff
Marisol Marfull-Jensen, Tara Flanagan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Disability Policy Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsCollectivismMandateIndividualismPromotion (chess)Inclusion (mineral)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyPersonal developmentSet (abstract data type)Political scienceDisabled peopleSocial psychologySociologyLawApplied psychologyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overarching goal of the Ley Nacional de Discapacidad (LND; National Disability Law [NDL]) enacted by Chile in 2010 is to facilitate “positive effects on Quality of Life (QOL) for individuals with disabilities” through the promotion of personal relationships, personal development, social inclusion, rights, and self-determination. Of the components linked to QOL in the 2010 law, self-determination may impose the most complex challenge to implement in Chilean society. Self-determination can be viewed as a social value, an individual skill set, or a personal outcome. Self-determination is discussed in relation to Chile’s collectivistic society, its history of disability rights, and to Person-Centered Planning, an approach that may enable Chile to fulfill the mandate of its NDL while balancing collectivistic and individualistic values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Disability Policy StudiesSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207