Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to offer a descriptive framework to analyse the participation of people with disabilities in policy advocacy over the past 20 years. METHODS: The study used a qualitative research design to describe and analyse organizations participating in policy advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities in Canada between 1981 and the present. Data for the study were assembled through interviews with key informants who had participated in three policy cases: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 (federal); the Canada Clause of the Charlottetown Accord, 1991 (federal); the Ontario Consent to Treatment, Advocacy and Substitute Decision-making bills, 1993-1995 (provincial). For each of the three cases, key informants were identified who could report with authority on the participation of individuals or groups representing people with disabilities. Interviews with key informants were conducted by the investigators, transcribed and coded to produce five dimensions along which advocates described their organizations. RESULTS: Three ideological dimensions were identified to describe organizations representing people with disabilities: purpose, tactics, and view of disability. Two practical dimensions were also identified: membership and resources. Each of these dimensions is described in detail with quotes from the interviews to illustrate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These five dimensions result in a descriptive framework for discussion and comparison of organizational characteristics of advocacy organizations representing people with disabilities. Further, the framework affords a vehicle for discussion of the relative success of policy participation on issues affecting the lives of people with disabilities.
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 | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".