Coverage of Allies, Allyship and Disabled People: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Disabled people face many problems in their lived reality, as evidenced by the content of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disabled people are constantly engaged in activism to decrease their problems. However, disabled people cannot do all the work by themselves and need allies (who can be so-called non-disabled people or disabled people of a different background to other disabled people) given the many barriers disabled people face in being activists, given the precarious lived reality of many, and given the many problems in need of solving. At the same time, the expectations linked to being an authentic ally of disabled people pose many challenges and stressors and a danger of burnout for the ally. Therefore, the aim of this study was to better understand the academic coverage of allyship and allies in relation to disabled people in general, and specifically the coverage of challenges, stressors, and danger of burnout for allies of disabled people. To fulfill this aim, we performed a scoping review of academic abstracts and full texts employing SCOPUS, the seventy databases of the EBSCO-HOST and the Web of Science. Of the 577 abstracts, covering allies and allyship in relation to disabled people that were downloaded, 306 were false positives. Of the 271 relevant ones, the content of six abstracts suggested a deeper coverage of allyship/allies in the full texts. Within the full texts, two mentioned ally burnout and four mentioned challenges faced by allies. Among the 271 abstracts, 86 abstracts mentioned allies without indicating who the allies were, 111 abstracts mentioned specific allies with technology as an ally being mentioned second highest. Sixty-three abstracts covered specific topics of activism for allies. Furthermore, although searching abstracts for equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) related phrases, terms, and policy frameworks generated sixty-three abstracts, only three abstracts mentioned disabled people. Abstracts containing science and technology governance or technology focused ethics fields terms did not generate any hits with the terms ally or allies or allyship. Searching abstracts and full texts, phrases containing ally or allies or allyship and burnout had 0 hits, ally terms with stress* generated four hits and phrases containing anti-ableism, or anti disablism, anti-disableist, anti-disablist, anti-ablist, or anti-ableist with ally terms had 0 hits. Our findings show many gaps in the coverage of allies and allyship in relation to disabled people especially around the barriers, stressors, and burnout that authentic allies of disabled people can face. These gaps should be filled given that disabled people need allies and that there are many challenges for being an authentic disabled or non-disabled ally of disabled people.
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 | 0,015 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,033 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».