North American approaches to individualised planning and direct funding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North America, unlike many Western countries, has a long history of service reform for people with different disabilities. Since the 1960s, complex community service systems have evolved, and many large institutions have closed. In Canada and the US, this extensive array of community-based programmes and rehabilitation services was originally based on what is known as the continuum model. In this approach, a range of services are offered from the most restrictive, such as a large residential care home, to the least restrictive, such as a supported independent living apartment. The assumption was that people would be able to progress through the continuum relatively quickly and that no one would get ‘stuck’ at the more restrictive end (Wieck and Strully, 1991). In the early 1980s, there was growing awareness of the limitations of the continuum model and the rehabilitation approach as a foundation for the provision of disability supports. Users and families found that community services that placed people into programmes promised far more than they delivered. The reality was that many people were isolated, congregated in large groups with other labelled people, stuck at the restrictive end of the continuum, and experiencing very little genuine community (Pedlar et al, 2000). The desire for a better quality of life grew as a response to these limitations and as a way to further community inclusion (Renwick et al, 1996). Individualised planning and direct funding have evolved as cornerstones of a new paradigm of disability supports for citizenship and inclusion. For more than 25 years, this new stage of service reform has been underway in Canada and the US.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".