The Evaluation of Capacity to Make Admission Decisions: Is it a Fair Process for Idividuals with Communication Barriers?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario the Health Care Consent Act protects the rights of competent patients to understand an alternate discharge destination and to consent to such discharge plans. Social work case managers evaluate the capacity of patients to refuse or accept admission to long-term care facilities by administrating the ‘Capacity to Make Admission Decisions’ questionnaire. The evaluation is a framework to reveal the patient's ability to understand and appreciate a decision. This article will show that the current capacity evaluation is not a fair process for people with communication barriers arising from stroke, progressive neurological diseases or English as a Second Language (ESL). Critical thinking and competency can be preserved but is masked both by the communication barrier and by an evaluation process that is inaccessible to many. This article will also proffer solutions in order to preserve the rights of this particularly vulnerable population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it