MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082803987 · doi:10.1177/1744629505059266

Empowerment and the architecture of rights based social policy

2005· article· en· W2082803987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim Stainton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentCitizenshipCorporate governanceSociologyPublic relationsControl (management)Public administrationArchitecturePolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawPoliticsComputer scienceEconomicsManagementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers what the notions of empowerment, rights and citizenship imply in the way of structures and policies. It argues that a coherent model is emerging with recognizable elements. The article begins with a brief discussion of some background and theoretical questions. It then examines four elements: support for people to articulate their claims; support for people to identify, obtain and manage supports necessary to actualize their claims; providing control over resources; and governance. Examples will be drawn primarily from the UK and British Columbia, Canada to illustrate the elements. The article then looks at some of the issues related to successful implementation of a rights or empowerment based model of policy and structures for supporting people labelled as having a learning disability.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.082
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207