MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362731394 · doi:10.1080/09687599.2023.2198662

Autonomous care decisions: what can Article 12 of the CRPD offer to older disabled adults and their supporters?

2023· article· en· W4362731394 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability & Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialObligationConvention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesMeaning (existential)Cognitive disabilitiesPsychologyDisabled peopleConventionCognitionSocial psychologyLawApplied psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.285 · 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