MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417474460 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v14i4.1301

Truthfully, I’m Me: Inclusive Research and Reflections on Being a Learning Disabled Researcher

2025· article· W4417474460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Foulds

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisabled peopleLearning disabilityIntellectual disabilityLearning disabledInclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article gives the reader examples of my reflections and observations while taking part as a researcher in the “I’m Me” project. I have Williams Syndrome (for more information see: https://williams-syndrome.org.uk/what-is-williams-syndrome-6-2/) and am learning disabled. In the UK learning disability is the language we use for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I left education at 18 with the UK equivalent of a high school diploma. Hopefully my reflections presented here will help inform other researchers who are looking at inclusive research.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0510.095
Scholarly communication0.0270.028
Open science0.0060.027
Research integrity0.0150.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicWilliams Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207