MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disability: A Rose by Any Other Name?“People‐First” Language in Canadian Society*

2001· article· fr· W2040917327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, nous examinons la notion d'incapacité telle qu'elle est créée et véhiculée par le langage qui privilégie la « personne avant tout » Nous nous penchons en premier lieu sur la formulation très répandue, qui consiste à désigner les personnes handicapées comme des « personnes comme les autres ». En second lieu, nous étudions l'idéolo‐gie actuelle, qui met l'accent sur le fait que les personnes handicapées sont simplement des « personnes avec des handicaps », dans l'une de ses manifestations les plus concrètes, c'est‐à‐dire un document récent du gouvernement intituléÀ l'unisson: Une approche canadienne con‐cernant les personnes handicapées . En partant du concept de Dorothy Smith, selon lequel le langage constitue l'organisation sociale, nous démontrons la façon dont l'incapacité est médicalisée et individualisée dans ce document, et, par là, la manière dont l'incapacité prend la forme d'une limitation anormale et d'une insuffisance fonctionnelle que certaines personnes, quatre millions de Canadiens en l'occurrence, «éprouveraient ». Enfin, nous concluons que le langage qui privilégie la personne avant tout se comprend dans le cadre d'un processus continu où l'incapacité n'est plus perçue comme un phénomène social et, par conséquent, complexe sur le plan politique. This paper examines the representation of disability that is generated by, and supports, “people‐first language.” The paper first describes the ubiquitous formulation of disabled people as “just people.” Second, the current ideology that stresses that disabled people are simply “people with disabilities” is examined in one of its concrete manifestations: a recent government document entitled In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues . By making use of Dorothy Smith's concept that language is social organization, the author shows how disability is organized in this document as a medicalized and individual matter and, as such, takes shape as abnormal limitation and lack of function that some people‐four million Canadians‐“just happen to have.” Finally, the paper concludes that people‐first language is best understood as part of an ongoing process that removes the possibility of understanding disability as a social, and thereby complex, political phenomenon. How we are seen determines in part how we are treated; how we treat others is based on how we see them; such seeing comes from representation — Dyer, 1993: 1

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it