MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Types of Practical Reasoning

2003· book-chapter· en· W4388068318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henry S. Richardson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawStatuteFlexibility (engineering)Government (linguistics)Disabled peopleScale (ratio)Set (abstract data type)BusinessPublic transportPublic relationsEuropean unionPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePsychologyEconomicsManagementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Returning to the issue of “making transportation systems accessible “ to the disabled-how should that be done? As policy problems go, this one is relatively small in scale. It presupposes that we have decided, in some more general way, that the disabled deserve special governmental measures designed to benefit them. In a scheme of statutory provisions that aim to do so, those that regulate access to transportation play but a small part. Such statutes generally also define “disability, “ indicate who is authorized to determine whether someone is disabled, set out remedies against discrimination, lay down requirements on employers and schools, and much more. The question of how to make transportation systems accessible to the disabled arises against this sort of backdrop. It has arisen in many different jurisdictions of all different sizes. In the 1980s, the city of Munich worked out an innovative timetable information system for its public transport with an eye to advising the disabled how to minimize awkward transfers.1 In 1992, Canada mandated that its national transportation system be made accessible to the disabled.2 The Swedish government, which early mandated uniform accessibility standards for common carriers, was apparently one of the first governments to be concerned with how easily the disabled could switch from one mode of transport to another on a long-distance journey.3 The European Union, for its part, has developed hortatory guidelines aimed at promoting “flexibility “ and “seamlessness “ in the travel of the disabled.4 As a relatively small-scale policy question, this one about making transportation systems accessible to the disabled is the sort of issue that is typically handed over to administrators. As a question that is now beginning to be addressed all over the world, it is not one of merely parochial interest. Drawing on an insightful case study by Robert A. Katzmann, I will use the issue to illustrate the importantly different modes of reasoning available to us as we make such policy.5

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.028
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.007

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207