Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagine if there was a vast British city where the 14 million residents were much less likely than those elsewhere to have a job or even any qualifications at all.Where the children were twice as likely to become victims of crime, far fewer adults owned their own home, and the impact of Coronavirus had been distressingly disproportionate.If such a place existed, policymakers and politicians would be clamouring to intervene and fix the obvious injustices that bedevilled the population.Think tanks would whirr into action, task forces would be created, no stone would be left unturned.Yet these statistics relate to the daily reality of life of the UK's 14.1 million people living with a disability.And, even though it is more than a quarter of a century since John Major introduced the ground-breaking Disability Discrimination Act, no UK government has ever drawn up such a comprehensive, concerted, cross-government plan to deal with such problems and make disability policy a truly ecumenical endeavour.That is, until now.Because if there is one thing more than any other that drives this government, it's our determination to level up the country so that whoever and wherever you are, the spark of your talent and potential can be connected with the kindling of opportunity.Viewed through such a prism the situation facing our disabled people -1 in 5 of the population -is not only a scandal for those involved but a waste of talent and potential that we can ill-afford.And while progress has been made in some areas, for example with more housing becoming more accessible, we can and must do better.Which is what this strategy is all about.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".