µIndividualized Support and Funding: building blocks for capacity building and inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The paradigm in disability supports is shifting away from institutional services and professional control towards self-determination and community involvement of people with disabilities. The assumption that the best way to provide disability supports is for government to give money to agencies or services, rather than directly to people with disabilities and their support networks, is being challenged. This article reports on findings and themes from a Canadian study that investigated individualised funding projects from different parts of the world. Ten of fifteen of the most ‘promising initiatives ’ were selected for more detailed study and analysis. Projects analysed were from Canada, the US, and Australia. Themes emerging from the study included: values and principles mattered, a policy framework provided coherence and equity, infrastructure supports for individuals were separate from service system, facilitator–broker role differed from case management, allocation of individualised funds was designed to be equitable and accountable to the funder and person, and a ‘learn as you go ’ philosophy maximised positive outcomes. This research project demonstrates that individualised support and funding, when embedded in the new paradigm of disability and community, build capacity of individuals, families, and communities.
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 | 0.032 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".