Disabilities and Livelihoods: Rethinking a Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livelihoods, or the means to secure the necessities of life, shape how we live as individuals, families and communities, and our sense of well-being. While discussions of livelihoods have influenced academic discussions and government actions in international development over the past 25 years, few have discussed the implications of a livelihoods approach for people with disabilities in the context of global Northern societies. This paper argues that by using a livelihoods approach, we can recognize the multiple and, at times, conflicting ways that people with disabilities sustain themselves and secure the necessities of life. A livelihoods approach recognizes the agency of individuals, including those with disabilities, in the context of their relationships in households, families and communities, while also identifying the systemic barriers, inequalities and opportunities that shape livelihood choices. Using this approach, we argue, will enable a better understanding of how people with disabilities both survive and thrive, the diverse livelihood choices they make and the implications these choices have for policy decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".