MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097476809 · doi:10.1002/dys.1441

Dyslexia and Learning Disabilities in Canada and the UK: The Impact of its Disability Employment Laws

2012· article· en· W2097476809 on OpenAlex
Paul J. Gerber, Cecilia G. Batalo, Edwin Obilo Achola

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDyslexia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslexiaLegislationLearning disabilityExtant taxonPsychologyPopulationLawPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologySociologyDemographyReading (process)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of employment laws pertaining to individuals with learning disabilities in Canada and dyslexia in the UK were investigated via the extant research literature. Currently, there is very little research in this area despite Canada and the UK having laws in effect for decades. Surprisingly, their laws have been revamped despite an absence of data that measures impact and effectiveness. This finding is not unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act, reauthorized as the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments in 2008, without substantive research to guide legal policies and practices going forward. Investigation in this area is needed to seek the positive and negative effects of legislation on those with learning disabilities in Canada and dyslexia in the UK, a high incidence population that finds most employment opportunities in competitive employment.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.302 · 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