Autistics' Perspectives of Autism Funding in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ontario overhauled their autism program in 2019 seeking to replace the flexible service-or funding-based 2018 Ontario Autism Program with a cash-based benefit called the Childhood Budgets program.Using Grounded Theory and Participatory Action Research, with a Structural Social Work and Critical Autism Studies lens, I used one-to-one interviews to ask four autistic adults in Ottawa, Ontario, their perspectives of autism funding and Applied Behaviour Analysis in Ontario.Participants reflected on how they identified with autism to frame their discussions in this research using prevalence rates of autism to exemplify a need to "demystify" and "de-monstrify" autism (Participant 'Tom,' A personal communication, Sept 25, 2019).Participants highlighted the importance of enjoying supports and services.They identified that supports could improve through increasing adult services and by teaching self-advocacy skills.Some participants did not trust the school system because of inadequate or inappropriate provision of support.Participants found that schools could improve by giving autistic students skills to "work in the real world" and de-instituting exclusionary practices (Participant 'James,' A personal communication, Oct 29, 2019).The lack of adequate funding, services, and supports for autism in Ontario may have increased some of the participants' use of medication.Participants acknowledged that medications could help and harm, but "can't really solve a problem."(Participant 'Tom,' A personal communication, Sept 25, 2019) Participants wanted inclusive policy-making opportunities for autistic people.All agreed that some of the costs for services should be covered, because paying can "sometimes make it look like the autistic child's a burden."(Participant 'Philip,' A personal communication, Oct 22, 2019) This research I wish to thank Bridget Liang, a PhD Candidate and co-founder of Autistics 4 Autistics and Autistiqueers, who acted as a paid reader of my ethics protocol during the summer of 2019: pushing me to consider how my research would not harm participants while promoting social change.Thank you to Christine Jenkins, co-author of Spectrum Women, who acted as a paid reader of Chapters 1 through 3 and providing rich resources and considerations with regards to semantics, history, and autistic selfadvocacy.I wish to thank my family who has supported me emotionally, mentally, financially, and academically.Thank you for appreciating me even with my need for routines, structure, and control.Thank you for always providing me with opportunities to learn and grow, for teaching me how to learn, and Mom, thank you for every time you cut out an 'autism article' in the newspaper and sent it to me.I wish to thank my community at Carleton Athletics, where I played out my special interests.You taught me new skills and to love learning, and challenged me to become engaged socially.Richard especially, identifying my special interest, taking the time to teach me to clean, jerk, and snatch, appreciating my early morning grumpiness and encouraging me to find time to take care of myself throughout the research process.v
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,031 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».