MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W350045960 · doi:10.1177/875687050202100203

Creating a New System of Supports: The Vermont Self-Determination Project

2002· article· en· W350045960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Aichroth, Jeremy Carpenter, Kim Daniëls, Patty Grassette, Darlene Parker Kelly, Amie Murray, Joanne Rice, Bob Rivard, Cindy Smith, Phil Smith, Karen Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Special Education Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Self-determinationSociologyOppressionDisability studiesPublic relationsPsychologyPoliticsPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Vermont Self-Determination Project is a model program for enhancing the self-determination of people with developmental disabilities in a rural state. Definitions of self-determination differ in a larger political perspective from those used in systems of supports and for people with disabilities. A brief historical overview demonstrates individualized funding and self-managed supports in Canada and the United States. Rural Vermont's developmental services system enhances opportunities for self-determination through the unique program qualities of the Self-Determination Project. These qualities include circles of support, facilitating self-advocacy, system-wide change, and a triad team approach, in addition to approaches to self-determination that include self-management and self-direction. Significant project outcomes point to areas for future exploration by rural as well as urban researchers and practicioners.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Special Education QuarterlySame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207