The conceptualization of stigma within a rehabilitation framework using HIV as an example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma theory is concerned with inclusion and opportunities that influence well-being. Rehabilitation is also concerned with social inclusion and well-being. This is a central concern in one of the leading rehabilitation theories, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Despite these shared concerns, the relationship between the fields of stigma and rehabilitation has not been well theorized to date. Using human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as an example, this article presents an analysis of three ways that stigma may be conceptualized within the context of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Three broad spheres of stigma are described: enacted, self, and structural stigma. These three forms of stigma are then aligned in unique ways with three particular constructs of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: participation restrictions, environmental, and personal contextual factors. This conceptualization illustrates how rehabilitation professionals and other practitioners, policy makers and researchers can better understand the dynamic and nuanced forms of stigma and how they relate to rehabilitation. Implications for rehabilitation This article enables rehabilitation professionals to better understand stigma as it relates to rehabilitation and human immunodeficiency virus. Rehabilitation professionals have the important job of allies and advocates for persons experiencing restrictions in these domains as a result of stigma.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".