L’évolution conceptuelle internationale dans le champ du handicap : enjeux socio-politiques et contributions québécoises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le handicap n’est pas une caractéristique de la personne mais le résultat situationnel de l’interaction entre une personne différente sur le plan corporel ou fonctionnel et un environnement physique et social spécifique. Cette affirmation simple issue du mouvement québécois d’exercice des droits de la personne et d’égalisation des chances des personnes handicapées amorcé depuis une trentaine d’années, et développée dans la Classification québécoise : Processus de production du handicap (PPH) a été au cœur de débats et controverses internationales qui ont marqué la révision de la Classification internationale des déficiences, incapacités et handicaps (CIDIH) de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé.L’auteur retrace les moments forts de cette dynamique québécoise et internationale, ponctuée autant de discussions scientifiques que d’alliances, blocages ou compromis sociopolitiques à partir d’une observation participante privilégiée au sein même des comités et jeux de coulisses internationaux.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
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".