Comparative systems of assessment of illness or disability for the purposes of adult social welfare payments. Second report (Carers)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the report: This is the second report of the study of comparative systems of assessment of illness or disability for the purposes of adult social welfare payments. This report considers assessment systems for carer payments in relation to disability status of an adult cared-for person. The purpose of the research, as set out in the RFT,is to examine systems for medical/disability assessment and review used in other comparable jurisdictions and to draw key learning for the Irish system.Methodology: The research looks at assessment systems for adult carers payments in a number of OECD countries, using 1) a review of relevant literature (including review of various online academic databases and legal databases) 2) access to online information from social security authorities and others 3) review of detailed evaluations of assessment systems (where these are available) 4)contacts with key informants in the chosen countries. The researchers first carried out a rapid review of assessment systems in a range of OECD countries (see Initial Review). On the basis of this study it was agreed to focus the research on Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nova Scotia (Canada) and the United Kingdom (UK).Structure of the report: In chapter 2, we provide a short overview of issues concerning support for carers drawing on the available literature. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the assessment systems in the five jurisdictions. Finally chapter 4 discusses the relevance of the findings to the Irish system.The detailed country reports are set out in the Annexes.
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 | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
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".