Disability: A Rose by Any Other Name?“People‐First” Language in Canadian Society*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".