MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012870211 · doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0243

Providing Accessible Services to Minority Ethnic Deaf People: Insights from a Study in Alberta, Canada

2002· article· en· W2012870211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Rodda, C. Jonah Eleweke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican annals of the deaf · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupService providerService (business)Public relationsService delivery frameworkSign languageSpecial needsPsychologyInternet privacyMedical educationSociologyBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceLinguisticsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that minority ethnic people in general and minority ethnic deaf people (MEDP) in particular face numerous formidable obstacles in their attempts to gain access to services in the community. Deaf people from minority ethnic groups who have no English and/or American Sign Language (ASL) skills have particular difficulty gaining access to services. The study therefore was concerned with identifying some of the special needs and difficulties of MEDP who are trying to gain access to services in multiethnic communities. Qualitative approaches were used in data gathering and analysis. The results indicated six areas of difficulty for MEDP in gaining access to services: (a) communication barriers, (b) a lack of recognition of the needs of MEDP, (c) inappropriate service delivery and a lack of information on available services, (d) insufficient cultural sensitivity on the part of service providers, (e) issues of user involvement, and (f) a lack of specific programs for MEDP.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican annals of the deafSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207