MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067778772 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v1i1.20

Disability History In Canada: Present Work In The Field And Future Prospects

2012· article· en· W2067778772 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Geoffrey Reaume

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity at BuffaloAdministration for Community LivingUniversity of OxfordYork UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaStrongUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of WaterlooU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Field (mathematics)Disability studiesWork (physics)State (computer science)Political scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEnvironmental ethicsLawComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper surveys the existing state of Canadian disability history in terms of publicly available studies and resources. It will also consider the extent to which the field includes a critical disability studies perspective. Furthermore, future prospects for disability history in Canada will be addressed, including consideration of wider public engagement in preserving, interpreting and promoting our past. Crucial to understanding future prospects are the resources that are, or need to be, available to enable disability history to flourish in Canada inside and outside the academy. This essay will conclude with a discussion about historical preservation and where this field might be in 2021.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0340.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207