Bibliographic record
Abstract
With knowledge comes responsibility. (Helen Holland, adult care-leaver and advocate, 20131) Helen Holland, quoted here, is a founding member of the Scottish advocacy and support organisation In Care Abuse Survivors (INCAS). INCAS has lobbied for a full public inquiry into care and has had input into Scotland’s National Confidential Forum, discussed later. Such inquiries produce knowledge, and Holland draws our attention to their implicit purpose: that this knowledge must then be used to inform responses. Advocacy groups such as INCAS play an important role in campaigning for public inquiries, which, in turn, have typically been the impetus to bring about system reform of varying degrees. Inquiries of one sort or another have been held in all five countries under discussion in this book, and include those with national reach, which are largely the focus of this chapter.2 Other more local or organisational enquiries have also been held. While public inquiries are the focus of this chapter, it is important to note that there are other forums in which knowledge about care and its outcomes have been identified. The Law Commission of Canada’s report of 2000, Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions, in discussing redress, very helpfully details the range of ways in which such information may be gathered. Criminal justice prosecutions, civil law actions, criminal injuries compensation programmes, ombudsman’s inquiries and other community initiatives are all ways in which this may occur. In this chapter, we first consider, generally, the purpose and nature of public inquiries. We then turn to a specific discussion of care-related public inquiries.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".