MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392935161 · doi:10.18438/eblip30522

Evidence Summary Theme: Disability, Accessibility, and Inclusion

2024· article· en· W4392935161 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fiona Inglis

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Theme (computing)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evidence summaries in this issue focus on disability, accessibility, and inclusion. These are huge topics that cannot be fully explored within the space of only six articles, but hopefully they will serve as an introduction to some of the conversations that are increasingly happening about disability in the lives of both library workers and library users.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0160.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207