A process of decision-making support: Exploring supported decision-making practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. <br>Background: Canada was the first country to develop legal mechanisms that allow for supported decision making, and little research has explored how decision making is supported in this context. This research aimed to understand how seven people with intellectual disabilities, living in two Canadian provinces, were supported with their decision making. Method: The research used constructivist grounded theory methodology, interviewing and observing the decision making of seven people with mild to severe intellectual disabilities and 25 decision supporters. Results: A common process of decision-making support was discovered, involving dynamic interaction between the person’s will and preferences and supporters’ responses. This interaction was influenced by five factors: the experiences and attributes the person and their supporter brought to the process; the quality of their relationship; the decision-making environment and the nature and consequences of the decision. Conclusion: The highly individualised and contextually dependent nature of decision-making support has implications for supported decision-making practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".