Creation of a Canadian Disability Studies Program: A Convergence of Multiple Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the beginnings of the Disability Studies Program, University of Windsor (2011a), by describing the converging pathways of several events. Influential collaborative processes that occurred between major disability organizations and academics with the courage to promote change proceeded program development in disability studies. Choosing a philosophical approach, based on the social model of disability assured a critical approach to studying disability, enabling the program to address the desire to confront existing oppression and to produce graduates with expertise in many areas relevant to this goal. Most importantly, supportive individuals and organizations from the community made the Disability Studies Program, at the University of Windsor, a reality. The authors summarize the developments that preceded and followed the inauguration of the Disability Studies Program and make suggestions about further improvements.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".