Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that people with disabilities are disproportionately represented among the world’s poorest, they have been marginalized in poverty research and have had minimal involvement in poverty reduction strategies. The current study addresses this issue, by providing an opportunity for people with developmental disabilities to control and direct the research agenda, and to have an active voice on the topic of poverty and disability. Thus, the present study aims to support the development of poverty reduction strategies by raising key issues and breaking down barriers to participation for people with developmental disabilities. This study utilized a social power framework and participatory action research approach, guided by an advisory committee of adults with developmental disabilities. Participants (n=27) included self-advocates with developmental disabilities, 18 years or older, living with low income. Six focus groups were conducted in Brantford, Hamilton and Waterloo region. The findings of this study revealed that the lived experience and consequences of poverty are characterized by a lack of resources to fulfill basic needs and participate in community life. Challenges to overcoming poverty include discrimination, dominant ideologies about disability, lack of employment opportunities and exclusion from participation in decision making about key disability and poverty issues. Thus, participants identified needs and recommendations for change to increase resources, promote participation and elimination of deficit -focused approaches, coupled with dissemination of the strengths-based approach to disability. The study provides increased visibility ofpeople with developmental disabilities to help overcome negative societal perceptions of disability. The implications of this study can be important in promoting preventive social programs and transformative social policy, both which aim to attack the causes of longterm poverty in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.137 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".