MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808578119 · doi:10.5569/2340-5104.06.01.01

Retos para la vida independiente de las personas con discapacidad intelectual. Un estudio basado en sus opiniones, las de sus familias y las de los profesionales

2018· article· es· W2808578119 on OpenAlexaff
María Pallisera i Díaz, Judit Fullana Noell, Carol Puyaltó Rovira, Montserrat Vilà i Suñé, María Josep Valls Gabernet, Gemma Díaz Garolera, Montse Castro Belmonte

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Española de Discapacidad · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pesar de la ratificación de España de la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad en 2007, son escasos los estudios sobre la situación de las personas con discapacidad intelectual (DI) respecto a su derecho a la vida independiente (art. 19). Con el objetivo de analizar las barreras, los apoyos y los retos que inciden en el ejercicio de este derecho, se realizó un estudio cualitativo con el que se aplicaron 10 grupos focales y 22 entrevistas individuales a personas con discapacidad intelectual, 5 grupos focales con familias y 33 entrevistas individuales con profesionales. Los resultados de la investigación ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de garantizar la universalidad del derecho a la vida independiente, ofrecer apoyos personalizados de calidad y desarrollar acciones formativas y de sensibilización en materia de derechos con los distintos actores implicados.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Española de DiscapacidadSame topicSocial Sciences and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207