MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754841963 · doi:10.1080/09503153.2017.1372738

Best Interests Assessor Role: An Opportunity or a ‘Dead End’ for Adult Social Workers?

2017· article· en· W2754841963 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Hubbard

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementCommissionSupreme courtWork (physics)Political scienceDead endLawHuman rightsVulnerable adultPsychologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This opinion article explores the significance of the Best Interests Assessor role in England and Wales for social workers working with adults. It considers the challenges of the role following the Supreme Court’s Cheshire West (2014) judgement and the implications for BIAs of the Law Commission’s 2017 plans for replacing DoLS with the ‘Liberty Protection Safeguards’. The author explains why they consider the BIA role to be a valuable one for the status of adult social work as well as for people who may lack capacity to uphold their human rights, with some reservations about the risk of diluting the safeguards the current role represents for those vulnerable people.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePracticeSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207