Is the Right to Access to the Services and Supports Ensured for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children? An Ethnographic Study Based on the Experience of Hearing Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right of people with disabilities to access services and supports they need is internationally recognized by the United Nations’ Convention (CRPD) on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, deaf and hard-of-hearing children face obstacles to access services requested by their parents. As part of a broader ethnographic research project focused on the experience of Francophone hearing parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children, this study explores the obstacles encountered by parents in their struggle to ensure that the needs of their children are met. 117 parents from Canada (n = 52), Belgium (n = 15), France (n = 23), and Switzerland (n = 27) participated in an in-depth interview. The main findings show that parents face important difficulties to access the available services due to their rural location, situated far from the main health services and due to the long wait times. Also, the unavailability of some of the rehabilitation and educational services represent another important obstacle that leads parents to become the main advocates for their children rights. Finally, some lines of action to implement the CRPD provisions are drawn to contribute to the right of deaf and hard-of-hearing children to access to the services they need.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".