Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I will explore the new roles of families, Civil Society and the State in the contemporary Adult Guardianship System. In the last 10 years, a theoretical change—most importantly, from the "substituted judgment" approach to the "supported decision-making" approach—has been emerging in many places such as the UK, Canada and Australia, and more countries are now trying to follow their example. The importance of empowering people with limited mental capacity towards their own decision-making is now becoming recognised in many jurisdictions. In this culture of new individualism, families occupy different places than before. It is now considered that families exist outside the realm of the person him/herself. This means that families are not automatically treated as natural advocates of other family members simply because of their relation, by birth or marriage, to the person. Families should be chosen by the person formally, or they should be given legal authority to provide support to the person as far as they do not infringe on the autonomy or the dignity of the person concerned. It might be said that, under the contemporary Adult Guardianship System, families can be a part of the caring society which maintains an alertness to the welfare of its members. The concept of Civil Society is showing its appearance here. Through an analysis of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the UK, I will clarify the possibilities for establishing the mechanism of mutual support, whether or not we stay within the families or local communities. I will conclude that, under the contemporary Adult Guardianship System, the focus should be placed on WHO ARE THE BEST PROVIDERS of "PERSONALISED" SUPPORT rather than who are the easiest providers of "uniform" support imposing the least cost on the shoulders of the State.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".