MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142821510 · doi:10.1108/13595474200400037

New Legislative Proposals for Women with Learning Disabilities and Mental Health Problems

2004· article· en· W2142821510 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen McNamara, Ian Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueTizard Learning Disability Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning disabilityLegislationPaternalismLegislatureAutonomyMental healthPsychologyMental Health ActState (computer science)Affect (linguistics)Mental health lawLawPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are several proposed changes to the law in England and Wales that will particularly affect women with learning disabilities. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, the draft Mental Health Bill and the draft Mental Incapacity Bill all highlight the tension between state paternalism and individual autonomy. This paper uses a fictional case scenario in order to consider the practical implications of this proposed legislation, and dilemmas that may arise.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTizard Learning Disability ReviewSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207