Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) has experienced considerable market growth in recent years. Growth has occurred in the health care industry with exceptional growth occurring in the fields of persons with disabilities and children’s services. Expansion of their services beyond the American boarders has resulted in CARF accrediting organizations in Canada, Ireland and Sweden with active work occurring in Denmark, Finland, France, Scotland, Italy, England and Australia. In Canada, policy makers at all levels of government began demanding greater community involvement in consumer service delivery. Policy makers and consumers made it clear that a system of accountability needed to be incorporated to ensure quality of service. In order to address the resulting growth in Canada and listen to the needs of consumers it became apparent that a separate office was required to meet the unique needs of Canadians. CARF Canada was established to meet the needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.020 |
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".