Autonomous care decisions: what can Article 12 of the CRPD offer to older disabled adults and their supporters?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers the author’s personal reflections on the meaning of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRP D) by drawing from the author’s experience as a carersupporter. Being recognised as someone who can make decisions is a fundamental human right. For many persons with disabilities, denial of such right is a fact of life. This article explores the issue of exercise of legal capacity as it affects older adults who live with significant cognitive and physical changes. The author highlights some of the complexities when professionals and carers such as family members have tremendous influences over older disabled adults’ decisions about care. It is argued that the State has an obligation to establish appropriate support measures for carers so that they possess the necessary capabilities and strengths to provide decision-making support to older disabled adults who accept such support in care settings.
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 | 0.033 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".