MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disability and Work in British West Africa

2018· book-chapter· en· W2850874549 on OpenAlex
Jeff Grischow

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine and Tropical Health
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismWorkforceWork (physics)RehabilitationCitizenshipPolitical scienceEconomic growthGender studiesSociologyMedicinePoliticsLawEngineeringPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract World War II significantly affected the development of disability programs in British West Africa during the late colonial period. Beginning in the early 1940s, Britain’s Colonial Office worked with the West African governors to develop rehabilitation programs for disabled African veterans. In Britain, rehabilitation for disabled veterans took the form of social orthopedics, which equated citizenship with the ability to work; British programs therefore prioritized reintegration into the workforce as the main goal of rehabilitation. The colonial programs attempted to transfer the social orthopedics program to Africa. The project failed because the African veterans did not want to be remade into productive workers on the Western/capitalist model. However, it did produce two lasting legacies: the creation of a network of Disabled People’s Organizations during the 1950s and 1960s, and the development of a successful onchocerciasis control program between 1974 and 2002.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.159 · 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