MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508862107 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1212116

Reshaping understandings of disability associated with age-related vision loss (ARVL): incorporating critical disability perspectives into research and practice

2016· article· en· W2508862107 on OpenAlex
Colleen McGrath, Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Barry Trentham, Jan Miller Polgar, Marlee M. Spafford

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConceptualizationMedical model of disabilityDisability studiesSocial model of disabilityInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychologyDialog boxRehabilitationSociologyPsychiatryGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.250
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it