Definitions of disability, impairment, and rehabilitation in the health sciences, social sciences, law, and economics: A meta-study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The definitions of disability, impairment, and rehabilitation vary greatly across disciplines, and it is unclear whether these definitions represent the experiences of persons with disabilities or those in need of rehabilitation. Moreover, we are not aware of definitions that combine the diversity of perspectives from the health sciences, social sciences, law, and economics. This is an important issue for the future of the Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (IDRR), at Ontario Tech University, which aims to conduct transdisciplinary research and knowledge translation. We propose to conduct a meta-study (Paterson et al., 2001) in order to identify and critically engage with the definitions of disability and rehabilitation used to conduct research in the health sciences, and in the social sciences and humanities. Meta-study refers to the systematic approach to analyzing and synthesizing bodies of research to uncover what is known of a specific phenomenon, and to understand how that knowledge is contoured by epistemological and methodological conditions in order to generate new and critically inflected interpretations of existing research and knowledge (see Barnett-Page 2009). Our study is guided by our primary research question: What are the contemporary definitions of disability and rehabilitation used when conducting research in the health sciences, social sciences and the humanities, law and economics? The intent of this study is not to produce novel, summative definitions of disability, impairment, or rehabilitation; rather we endeavor to conduct transdisciplinary scholarship that identifies what is known of these terms. More specifically, we aim to locate the many ways in which these terms acquire social, historical, political-economic, and experiential meaning, and the many relations of power, governance, and care shaping and shaped by these definitions. We have selected meta-study as it is designed to “to dig below the surface of what is currently understood, to draw on the most thorough analysis possible to deconstruct the validity of the ideas that are currently in favor, and to emerge with… a better understanding, or a more socially responsible form of theorizing something” (Paterson et al., 2001, p111). Throughout the course of this review we will work with the IDRR Advisory Committee to ensure our meta-study design and outcomes align with the goal of improving the life and well-being of persons with disabilities. The Advisory Committee is a body internal to the IDRR—comprised of representatives from disability-led activist and rights advocacy groups and disability-focused rehabilitation and social services providers—that builds procedural accountability mechanisms and works with researchers to align institute aims with community needs and interests. The Advisory Committee at present includes representatives from Disability Without Poverty, the Disabled Women’s Network, the Empowerment Council, Grandview Kids, Hanover Medical School, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, the National Network for Mental Health, Physiocare Ltd., the University of Ghana Sunyani Learning Centre, and Vibrant Community Health Centre. The anticipate deliverable of this meta-study is to develop a perspective on how we use notions of disability, impairment, and rehabilitation for the purposes of engaging community members and academic partners in producing knowledge that is culturally safe, inclusive, and relevant to the work of the IDRR.
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 | 0,122 | 0,223 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,025 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».