Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study considers the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a tool for promoting the full social inclusion of people with a mental or intellectual disability. RECENT FINDINGS: The United Nations Convention has ushered in a new era of discourse that moves beyond a consideration of individual impairments, to focus on the social and environmental barriers that prevent full and effective social participation of people with disabilities. It provides an important social justice framework to guide and integrate disability policy within and across countries. In order to realize its potential, the mental health community must now actively develop a new disability discourse - one that moves beyond the traditional focus on negative protections, such as against forced confinement or coercive treatment, to one that examines the services and supports that are needed to allow people who have a mental illness to become fully functioning members of society. To meet the monitoring requirements of the Convention, the mental health community must actively seek population data to assess the nature of prejudice and discrimination experienced by people with a mental illness. An approach used by Statistics Canada is provided as one such example. SUMMARY: The United Nations Convention is an important roadmap for change, which can be used to shift current mental health discourse from a discussion emphasizing the protection of negative rights, such as from involuntary detention or coerced treatment, to one emphasizing social rights and civic participation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".