Reshaping understandings of disability associated with age-related vision loss (ARVL): incorporating critical disability perspectives into research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this paper, we have sought to stimulate a critical dialog regarding the ways in which disability has been largely conceptualized and studied in literature addressing age-related vision loss (ARVL). We suggest an expansion of this largely biomedically informed research area to include alternative frameworks, namely critical disability perspectives. METHOD: To demonstrate the potential contributions of adopting a critical disability approach to enhance understandings of ARVL, this article outlined the primary tenets of the biomedical and social models of disability; the key aims, emphases, and assumptions of critical disability perspectives; and provided examples of how such an approach would lead to new research foci in the study of ARVL. RESULTS: The paper highlighted four qualities of critical disability perspectives that future ARVL research should ascribe to, including (a) a focus on interdependence over traditional notions of independence; (b) a broader conceptualization of 'normalcy'; (c) the influence of language as a means of describing or labeling disabled persons; and (d) the influence of the socio-political environment in the creation and sustainment of disability. CONCLUSIONS: This paper encouraged the incorporation of critical disability perspectives to provide new ways of conceptualizing, researching, writing about, and practicing in relation to ARVL. Implications for Rehabilitation The application of critical disability perspectives to expand the boundaries of low vision research can broaden low vision rehabilitation services (LVRS) in ways that more effectively attend to environmental features shaping and perpetuating disability for clients with age-related vision loss (ARVL). Low vision research, informed by critical disability perspectives, would inform a shift away from the exclusive focus on independence towards an acknowledgment of interdependence. The integration of participatory research approaches in ARVL research could generate new insights to inform rehabilitation by enhancing space and respect for the stories and knowledge of older adults aging with vision loss. Greater attention in low vision rehabilitation should be paid to how older adults' experiences of disability are tied to both the environmental context in which they exist and by the limitations caused by their impairment.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
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 | 0.109 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.135 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".