MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066688388

Interventions for addressing market problems in the NDIS: an evidence review

2019· article· en· W7066688388 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Issues and Policies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionGovernment (linguistics)Intervention (counseling)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) progresses through its implementation, calls for stewardship of the new disability market increase.As a personalisation scheme, the condition of the disability service markets are tied to the ability for people with disability to access care services.Market conditions such as thin markets, market gaps and market failure threaten the public policy goals of increased choice and control for NDIS participants.We review the evidence for interventions and other market stewardship actions that can be taken by government to steward a quasi-market that provides care or welfare services.We assess the breadth and quality of the evidence base and apply these findings to the case of the Australian NDIS.We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to take actions to steward the NDIS market, but that considerable resources and governance capacity are needed to do so.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.117 · 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