Negotiating disability in everyday life: ethnographical accounts of women with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drawing on data from a larger study, the aim of this paper is to illuminate how the everyday doings of women with disabilities are coordinated to and shaped by organizational processes and social context, particularly as these relate to the potential of being labelled disabled. METHODS: An institutional ethnography was conducted with seven Austrian women diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interviews and participant observations were conducted, and texts about the historical development of disability policies were identified. Data analysis included grouping similar doings of participants together to subsequently explore links between what the women did and how their doings are shaped by disability policies and the social context. RESULTS: The women, who participated in this study, spent time and effort to keep the disease invisible, resist disability and negotiate a disability pass. By drawing upon the historical development of Austrian disability policies, the interpretation reveals how this development infiltrates into participants' lives and shapes their everyday doing. CONCLUSION: This study furthers understanding of how broader policies and practices, shaped over historical time, infiltrate into the daily lives of women with disabilities. It illustrates how full participation may not necessarily be a lived reality for people with disabilities at this point in Austria. Implications for Rehabilitation Maximising full participation for people with rheumatoid arthritis is important. This requires focusing not only on the bodily health of people with rheumatoid arthritis but also on their interaction with the social, cultural and political context in their daily lives. This requires also understanding how knowledge about disability is passed on from previous generations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".