The Role of Disability Groups in the Development and Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neoliberal agenda has seen increased engagement of governments and disability organizations in policy making and implementation processes. Yet governments have been slow to address needed changes in disability policy over the last three decades questioning the role of disability organizations who have increasingly turned to rights-based claims on states. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which reaffirms in article 29 the full political participation of persons with disabilities is one such example. Unclear, however, is the role of disability organizations in the UN Convention’s development, ratification and implementation. Were disability organizations active and central actors in this process? This article investigates this question in relation to three case studies: Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. The story that emerges underscores the centrality of disability organizations in policy development during times of government disinterest or indifference.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".