Advocacy Campaign for the Rights of People with Disabilities: A Participatory Action Research within a Community-based Rehabilitation Project in Vangani, Maharashtra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aimed to demonstrate how participatory action research (PAR) within a Community-based Rehabilitation (CBR) project facilitated community participation to advocate for the rights of people with visual impairment. An advocacy campaign, led by the local people with and without disabilities, was launched for the construction of an accessible foot over- bridge (FOB) at Vangani railway station in Maharashtra, India. Methods: The PAR approach was used to explore the issues faced by the local people with visual impairment. It ensured maximum community consultation, engagement and, consequently, meaningful outcomes for the community. Advocacy tools such as video documentary, online petition, media advocacy, and signature campaign were employed to publicise the issue on a larger platform. Sources for this paper included quantitative data from the survey of Vangani community and documents such as CBR project reports, media coverage articles, minutes of the meeting and correspondence with the Central Railways during the advocacy campaign that was conducted from 2012 - 2015. Results: After 12 months of consistent advocacy, the Ministry of Railways sanctioned INR 15 million for the construction of the foot over-bridge. The construction work on the foot overbridge was completed in December 2016 and now it is open for public use.. Conclusion and Implications: This study illustrates how PAR within a CBR project successfully used an advocacy campaign as a tool for community participation, action and change. Although geographically limited to rural pockets of Maharashtra state, the learning experiences brought out some of the elements crucial for the success of an advocacy intervention within CBR programmes for the rights of people with disability in India.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".