MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7009771140

Examining the Social Security Tribunal’s Navigator Service: Access to Administrative Justice for Marginalized Communities

2022· article· en· W7009771140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Economic JusticeTribunalSocial securityService providerImmigrationPensionPayment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accessible MS Word version of this document is available for download at the bottom of this screen under "Additional files."\nThis report provides the findings, analysis and recommendations of a research study conducted on the federal Social Security Tribunal’s Navigator Service (SST Navigator Service). The SST Navigator Service was established in 2019 for tribunal users without a professional representative. The study examines the use of the Navigator Service for Canada Pension Plan–Disability (CPP–Disability) appeals heard by the Income Security - General Division of the Social Security Tribunal.\nThis research study focuses on access to administrative justice on the ground. It examines how the innovative SST Navigator Service facilitates access to CPP disability benefit decision-making as well as the ways that the Navigator Service could be improved. As part of its focus, the study examined how well the Navigator Service supports users from marginalized communities. The SST serves users who are often at the intersections of being people with disabilities and people who live with low income. Statistically, a significant proportion of people who live with low income in Canada are also women, immigrants and/or visible minorities. The SST Navigator Service therefore presents an opportunity to consider how individuals from these and other marginalized communities are experiencing the system and how the service may be helpfully improved.\nThrough 36 semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis, the researchers considered the perspectives of former appellants who used the Navigator Service and received at least one tribunal decision between the Service’s inception in November, 2019 and April, 2021. They also spoke with the navigators and, for context, gathered information from relevant government officials involved in the design, implementation and running of the Navigator Service.\nIn addition to findings about user experiences and navigator roles, the report provides recommendations to maintain and strengthen the SST Navigator Service. It concludes that the SST Navigator Service is an innovation that enhances access to justice. Navigator services may be beneficially adopted by other administrative tribunals at the federal level in Canada, and in the administrative justice systems of the provinces and territories. Navigator services may also be beneficial in jurisdictions beyond Canada.\nCe rapport est également disponible en francais.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)→Same topicMollusks and Parasites Studies→French-language works237,207→