La Classification québécoise dite Processus de production du handicap peut-elle contribuer à la production de connaissances et aider à la prise de décisions ?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study run by the “Quebecois Committee on the International Classification of Impairment Disabilities and handicaps” at the same time as the revision process of the I.C.I.D.H. led to the production of a “classification” distinct from that of the WHO. The third version of this “classification”, known as “Processus de production du handicap” released in 1998 – considered by its developers as a final, accomplished and validated version – seems to place itself more as a competitor than as a complement to the WHO classification. Although called “Classification”, this text is in fact made up of five distinct documents entitled “nomenclature” none of which have the formal properties of a classification. The expression “Processus de production du handicap” does not refer to a delimited set of objects or types susceptible to be classified, but is the proper noun of a “model” which claims to be “an explicative model of the diseases, traumatisms and other attacks of the integrity and development of the individual”. The analysis of the different nomenclatures shows that they have not been designed to serve the general purpose of “explanation” of the “Processus de production du handicap” in other words the “process of production of social exclusion”, and they can’t claim to contribute in a notable way to this explanation. On the contrary, the main purpose according to which these documents have been conceived seems to be to provide “experts” the means to draw up “individual profiles” based on judgments passed on individuals, on the nature and extent of their “needs”, their belonging to a “target group”, and their right to compensation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it