MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013854537 · doi:10.7202/1068189ar

Negotiating Care: Living Arrangements and Adults with Cognitive Disabilities in South Brazil1,2

2020· article· en· W3013854537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helena Fietz

Bibliographic record

VenueDéveloppement Humain Handicap et Changement Social · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsPleaAbleismLegislationAutonomySociologyInvisibilityNegotiationGender studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceCriminologySocial psychologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assisted Living for adults with disabilities is a recent subject inboth Brazilian legislation and public debates. Although stillstigmatized by the idea that those who seek different livingarrangements for their children would be abandoning them, the concernwith both the autonomy of people with disabilities and the well-beingof the caregivers has prompted this theme to gain force in public andprivate spheres. Drawing from an ethnographic work with mothers ofadults with cognitive disabilitiesy from Porto Alegre, Brazil, whoconstituted a group to demand governmental action regarding assistedliving facilities, I propose a reflection on how such plea enables afurther discussion on the way disability and care are enacted. I arguethat by thinking of their trajectories through the care practices theyentail, one can track the moralities surrounding their experience ofmotherhood and how they are telling of the way disability is dealt within this specific time and place. Situating their claim within broaderdebates on institutionalization, I stress how their plea cannot beunderstood without a critical stand on ableism and the invisibility anddevaluation of care work.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDéveloppement Humain Handicap et Changement SocialSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207