“Parent Advocacy” as an Ideological Code: LGBTQ Parents Engage with Disability Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does the work that LGBTQ parents do to find resources for their disabled children reveal about the social organization of services? This article presents findings from an institutional ethnography study based on interviews with 15 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) parents and six key community informants in Toronto, Canada. The analysis focused on the work parents did to engage with disability service systems on behalf of their children, and the ways in which families’ social privilege and/or marginalization affected their experiences. Particular attention was paid to the ways in which “parent advocacy” was taken up, responded to, and critiqued in these interviews. “Parent advocacy” was found to operate as what Dorothy Smith has called an “ideological code” (Smith 1999), offloading systemic responsibilities onto parents, shielding inequities, and promoting individualized competition between service users. This study suggests that the systemic organization that makes “parent advocacy” necessary also renders parents’ relative privilege or marginality central to what their children receive.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".