Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, the climate of shrinking health care resources will impact access to health care for the people most vulnerable-those with disabilities. This study looked at the perceived impact of leadership and participation by people with physical disabilities and at their ability to gain increased access to health care, attendant care and social services. Respondents were randomly selected from Canada and the United States, from a pool of participants with physical disabilities serving in leadership roles within disability organizations in either country. Responses from a mail-out survey questionnaire were tabulated using logistic regression procedures to identify the perceived impact of advocacy activity on improved access to health care, attendant care and social ser- vices. Findings suggest that those who participated in advocacy activities were significantly more likely to feel that their action improved access to health care resources, attendant care resources and social services. Advocates also perceived the impact of access for their family, local organizations, and at a regional/national level. This study highlights the value of consumer/citizen participation, and the vital role this action can play in collaboration with social work professionals for system changes, health resource planning and policy development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".