The Governance of Developmental Disability Supports for Older Adults in Ontario and Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \n \n \nThe Governance of Developmental Disability Supports for Older Adults in Ontario and Québec \n \nDaniel Dickson \n \n \nThis project aims to analyze the effects of Canadian provincial governance structures on support work provision for older adults with developmental disabilities. Drawing from multilevel governance literature, it compares Ontario's more centralized and policy-driven governance structure with Québec's more disentangled and multi-jurisdictional structure, which gives more autonomy to developmental support agencies in planning support provision. To facilitate this comparison the project uses semi-structured interviews with personal support workers for older adults with developmental disabilities in both provinces. By using an 'institutional ethnography' interview methodology, the work experiences of primary support workers are situated within operant policies and rules, specifically with respect to supporting their clients in 'social inclusion', a widely recognized core domain for quality of life outcomes for adults with developmental disabilities. Owing to dramatic improvements in life expectancy resulting from healthcare advancements and deinstitutionalization, Canadians with developmental disability are increasingly living into older age. Consequently, support work practice is challenged by the intersection of social constructions of aged and disabled identities, which can act against the social inclusion of this ‘new’ population. By comparing these two divergent provincial governance structures from the important perspectives of frontline workers, this project contributes to a discussion of best practices in Canadian policy and administration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".