MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W29856255 · doi:10.1164/rccm.19711p19

Do Sufficient Recreational Programs for Disabled Children Exist in Monroe and Ontario Counties

2013· article· en· W29856255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren A. Bauerlein

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We live in a country where people, including the handicapped are guaranteed many rights and freedoms. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) ensures that equal opportunities are provided to people with disabilities. There is a large percentage of children in the United States with disabilities. These mental or physical disabilities impair their major life activities. Research shows that both formal and informal activities have proven to be beneficial to children with disabilities. The purpose of Parks and Recreation Departments is to provide physical and non-physical activities to people in the community. A survey of Directors of Parks and Recreation departments will determine if there are sufficient Parks and Recreation programs currently available for children with disabilities in the New York State counties of Monroe and Ontario. If there are not sufficient programs, the study will attempt to determine why. This author believes that there are not sufficient programs due to insufficient funding, high cost of equipment and lack of trained staff.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→