MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950109940 · doi:10.1080/09687599.2019.1619232

Working to make research inclusive: perspectives on being members of the Voices of Youths Project

2019· article· en· W2950109940 on OpenAlex
Zoe Stanley, Peter Lauretani, David Conforti, Jasmine Cowen, Denise DuBois, Rebecca Renwick

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyIntellectual disabilityWork (physics)PedagogySociologyPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article describes the work of the first three authors, who are young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), on an ‘inclusive research’ project. For this project, these young adult activists worked together with university researchers and students, and with organizations serving disabled people as active members of the research team. Through this research project, 24 participants who were youths with IDD were interviewed about their important relationships and the activities they do in their communities. The research found that belonging really matters to the youths interviewed. These young adult activists talk about some of the activities they they did as research team members and some of their important contributions to the research. For example, they participated in writing the interview questions, recruiting study participants, and making a film about what the research found.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.368 · 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