Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article considers what the notions of empowerment, rights and citizenship imply in the way of structures and policies. It argues that a coherent model is emerging with recognizable elements. The article begins with a brief discussion of some background and theoretical questions. It then examines four elements: support for people to articulate their claims; support for people to identify, obtain and manage supports necessary to actualize their claims; providing control over resources; and governance. Examples will be drawn primarily from the UK and British Columbia, Canada to illustrate the elements. The article then looks at some of the issues related to successful implementation of a rights or empowerment based model of policy and structures for supporting people labelled as having a learning disability. Keywords advocacy; direct funding; empowerment; personal planning; rights Empowerment has for a decade or more been a keyword in social work and other human services. While definitions vary, the essence of empower-ment is about enhancing, securing and/or legitimating the power of oneself, another, or a collective. For people who have been labelled as having a learning disability this is indeed a profound change – and chal-lenge – to a society and service system which have on many occasions either inadvertently or actively sought to diminish, delegitimate, oppress and control those so labelled (see Macnicol, 1989; Stainton, 1998a; Thomson, 1998). The related ideas of rights, choice, citizenship and self-determination have now become well established as a philosophy or value base said to underlie progressive policy and services for people with a learning disability (see DoH, 2001; MCFD, 2002). Exactly what this means in practice and the theoretical imperatives underlying it, however, are somewhat less clear. a rt i c l e
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".