MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W815551344

Challenges to the human rights of people with intellectual disabilities

2009· article· en· W815551344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frances Owen, Dorothy M. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Entomology and Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsSociologyMental healthMatriculationMedia studiesLawPolitical scienceLibrary sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Rights Education Project that Inspired this Book. Frances Owen Brock University, Ontario, Canada and Dorothy Griffiths, Brock University, Ontario. 1. Historical and Theoretical Foundations of the Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities: Setting the Stage. Frances Owen, Dorothy Griffiths, Donato Tarulli, Brock University, Ontario and Jacqueline Murphy, Niagara University, New York, USA. 2. The Emergence of the Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in International Law: The Cases of the Montreal Declaration on International Disabilities and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Jocelin Lecomte, West Montreal, Lisette-Dupras, Readaptation Centers, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, Celine Mercier, University of Montreal, McGill University and West Montreal. 3. Right to Life. Shelley Watson, Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario and Dorothy Griffiths. 4. Self-Determination and the Emerging Role of Person-Centred Planning: A Dialogical Framework. Donato Tarulli and Carol Sales, Brock University, Ontario. 5. Legal Rights and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. Voula Marinos, Brock University, Ontario, Dorothy Griffiths, Leanne Gosse, Brock University, Ontario, Jennifer Robinson, University of Waterloo, Ontario, J. Gregory Olley, University of North Carolina, USA and William Lindsay, University of Abertay, Scotland. 6. Medical Rights for People with Intellectual Disabilities. Yona Lunsky, University of Toronto and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada Paul Fedoroff, Institute of Mental Health Research of the University of Ottawa, and Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Forensic Program of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, Canada Kajsa Klassen, Brock University, Ontario, Carolyn Gracey, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Susan Havercamp, University of South Florida, USA, Beverly Fedoroff, Centre for Nursing and Health Studies at Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada and Nicholas Lennox, The University of Queensland, Australia. 7. Sexuality and Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. Deborah Richards, Sexuality Clinic at Community Living Welland Pelham, Ontario, Nancy Miodrag, McGill University, Montreal, Shelley Watson, Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Maurice Feldman, Brock University, Ontario, Marjorie Aunos, West Montreal and Lisette-Dupras, Diane Cox-Lindenbaum, Private Clinician and Consultant, Connecticut, USA and Dorothy Griffiths. 8. Right to Evidence-Based Treatment for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: Issues of the Use of Therapeutic Punishment. Tricia Vause, Brock University, Ontario, Kaleigh Regehr, Brock University, Ontario, Maurice Feldman, Brock University, Ontario, Dorothy Griffiths and Frances Owen. 9. Rights and Education. Christine Y. Tardif-Williams, Brock University, Ontario, Marion Trent-Kratz, Krystine Donato, Brock University, Ontario. 10. Ensuring Rights: Systematic and Educational Approaches. Frances Owen, Mark Julien, Carol Sales, Christine Y. Tardif-Williams, Barbara Vyrostko, Community Living Welland Pelham, Ontario and Karen Stoner, Autism Ontario (Niagara Chapter).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Entomology and ZoologySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207