The humanistic perspective as “a lighthouse” for the perception of <scp>QOL</scp>/<scp>FQOL</scp> and its application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly important topic in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Those efforts have included the structuring of models of QOL and more recently Family Quality of life (FQOL). The time has arrived to examine other developments and consider their place in a QOL paradigm. In this article, we have described one of the aspects of QOL that does not appear to be formally or directly structured into models of QOL, namely the role of the humanistic perspective as “a lighthouse” concept for the perception of QOL/FQOL and a vehicle for its application in practice. It is recognized that many researchers and practitioners have considered or practised a humanistic approach but the core beliefs and elements on humanism have received less specific or detailed attention in the QOL literature. This article proposes humanistic philosophy to be the basis for defining humanistic theoretical principles and guidelines for practice, and to be an important vehicle for operationalizing and applying quality of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.324 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".