MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230018041 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012083

Editorial: Canadian Association on Gerontology Policy Statement on Assistive Devices for Seniors

2001· editorial· en· W4230018041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)GerontologyAssociation (psychology)Action (physics)Computer scienceLibrary sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statement of the Problem: Canada has no consistent policy on technology-related assistance for individuals with disabilities and/or physical limitations, or on financial assistance with the acquisition of such devices. Evidence suggests that financing is a major barrier to the use of assistive devices This barrier has resulted in a lack of systematic reporting requirements for assistive devices services among direct-service programs, a lack of uniform classification of assistive devices expenditures, and blurred distinctions between assistive and mainstream technology (Mendelsohn, 1997).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207