The role of mandates/philosophies in shaping the interactions between people with disabilities and their support providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support provision is a personal and important element of daily life for many people with disabilities. The study examines the ways in which organizational mandates and philosophies shape interactions between people with disabilities and support providers at two unique organizations: a L’Arche community for people with intellectual disabilities and a Independent Living Resource Centre. The project is framed with the social model of disability, the work of Titchkosky (2003) and human geography. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, including a scenario component, with administrators at each location, people with disabilities using the services and support providers. The findings demonstrate that both organizations have strongly articulated philosophies that the participants are familiar with. The L’Arche model creates an environment that determines certain ways of interacting and while the IL participants amend the philosophy to reflect the daily reality of support provision.
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 | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".