Disability, Poverty and Welfare Policy: A Critical Disability Theory Analysis of Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped and Implications for Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout modern history, people with disabilities have been socially and economically excluded and subject to intrusive, segregated services. The systemic exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream society is a product of entrenched discrimination and the devaluing of their lives. The majority of people with disabilities are left with limited options, forcing them to rely on family members, charity and/or state programs to meet their financial and daily living needs. Disability activists have challenged the hegemonic belief that disability is an individual problem, labeling this the ‘individual pathology’ model of disability. They propose an alternative framework, ‘the social model’ which views disability as entirely subjective and societal, rather than a problem within individuals. This thesis examines how the underlying belief that people with disabilities are tragic and flawed, deserving of charity but not equality, may still be a critical factor that influences the construction of social policy, despite the rising popularity of social model thinking. Utilizing choice analysis, this thesis studies the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) in Alberta. The questions are asked: which model of disability influenced how and why AISH was developed; and has the AISH program evolved with the growing recognition of the social model of disability? The analysis is then used to reflect on the emerging Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program. The systemic exclusion of disabled people has been de-politicized. Alternatives to the individual pathology model, although known to policy-makers, have been ignored in mainstream policy discourse. (Oliver, 1996; Titchkosky, 2006). If positive change is to happen, the situation of people with disabilities must be re-politicized and their collective experience of exclusion acknowledged and as they define their own needs (Oliver, 1990).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".