Examining literary and policy discourses of mental disability in the post-dismantlement phase of Ontario's institutional cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons living with a mental disability in Ontario comprise a significant and diverse population that has historically existed in the margins of society as a result of the discrimination that has dominated the province's social and political discourses. Building upon McCauley's (2011) research, a critical discourse analysis methodology was utilized to examine the ways that major policy and literary discourses have influenced the cultural constructions of mental disability in Ontario. The present study focuses on policy and literary texts, specifically novels and memoires, published since the last institutions in the province were closed in 2009, marking the beginning of the post-dismantlement phase of the Ontario's institutional cycle. It was anticipated that an examination of the ways that literature and policy construct mental disability during the post-dismantlement phase of Ontario's institutional cycle would help to identify policy planning needs and opportunities for advancing human rights for persons living with mental disabilities. Findings ultimately identify a disconnect between Ontario's public policies that assert a responsibility to uphold the social and economic rights of persons living with disabilities, and experiences of exclusion amongst persons living with mental disabilities as depicted in literary fiction and non-fiction narratives. In order for equality in social and economic participation to be realized a number of recommendations are proposed, including the use of direct consultation with service-users of varying abilities to inform policy planning initiatives, as well as increased availability of institutional services such as long-term care facilities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".