Bibliographic record
Abstract
This reflection and PowerPoint presentation were part of an assignment in the course Policy and Justice in an Aging Society (Year 2, Semester 1) in the Social Service Worker Gerontology program. The purpose of this assignment was to engage in advocacy work on issues and promote change and solutions by raising awareness.\nJenna describes her process for advocating for change "I decided to advocate for change to the lack of accessibility of sidewalks. I chose to focus on this because it is an issue I see everywhere, it effects a lot of people including seniors, people with disabilities or parents with strollers. I started this project researching what the accessibility standards are for sidewalks in Ontario; I was very shocked to discover that there were many regulations put in place to improve safety and accessibility of sidewalks back in 2005, as per the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. However, from what I see and experience very few towns follow these standards. So I took photos of the inaccessible sidewalks within my home town of Alton to have evidence to show others who were unaware, started a petition and asked community members of their experience with using the sidewalks. Through this community engagement I received the opportunity to delegate at the Town of Caledon’s Accessibility Advisory Committee where I presented my findings to them. I gained many skills that will help me as a Social Service Work including; how to advocate for change, better presentation skills, and how to conduct research and interviews."
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".