Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This chapter explores policy and practice in Hong Kong, and their impact on people with intellectual disabilities and their families, in three phases: before the 1990s (‘Early developments’); pre- and post-resuming sovereignty over Hong Kong (‘The Golden Era’); and from the Millennium to the present (‘Divergence’). Before the 1990s: Early developments Laura's story I: A parent's experience Laura, the mother of a 43-year-old daughter with Down's Syndrome, said: “I still remember the moment, just after my labour, when I heard and learned from the dialogue among the medical staff in the delivery room that my daughter had Down's Syndrome; no one came up to me and informed me directly. I felt helpless and did not know where to seek help or get more information. Afterwards, no social worker came to me to give me any support or counselling. The hospital also did not follow up on my situation after we were discharged. I took some time to accept this news, and I had to seek information from other organisations on my own. The days were full of tears, as I recall.” (A scenario from the year 1974) Laura's experience reflects the general situation of families with a child with intellectual disability in the early 1970s. This period marked the beginning of the development of disability services (then conceived of as ‘rehabilitation services’) in Hong Kong. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the field was in a developmental phase in ideology, policy direction, service provision and people's understanding. Morninghill School was the first special school in Hong Kong for pupils with intellectual disability. It was established in 1964 by a group of parents. The school had one class, with four pupils: one each from the USA, Canada, Australia and Scotland. From 1968 the school was subsidised by the government and run by the Hong Kong Association for the Mentally Handicapped (now called Hong Chi Association) (Hong Chi Association, 2018). The enactment by the government of six-year compulsory education in 1971 and nine-year free and compulsory education in 1978 (Poon-McBrayer and Lian, 2002) gradually provided children with intellectual disability the opportunity of schooling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".