A closer look at opportunities for blind adults: Impacts of stigmatization and ocularcentrism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blind Canadians experience higher rates of unemployment, social isolation, and poverty than sighted Canadians. Examining what influences opportunities can help to identify the factors that disable blind people. During initial analysis, stigma and ocularcentrism emerged as important factors. Thus, this article examines how stigma operates culturally, socially, politically, and economically to shape opportunities among blind adults. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with six legally blind participants (visual acuity of 20/200 or below), aged 19–65 years. Thematic analysis was employed to understand the common and diverging narratives of participants. Within participant narratives, ocularcentrism is found to contribute to stigmatization at societal, interpersonal, and internalized levels. Opportunities are experienced within this context, and the stigmatization experienced both shaped and was shaped by participation in activities. It is imperative that a closer look is given to how stigma shapes the opportunities for blind people, so that individuals, teachers, practitioners, and policy makers can develop relevant and effective interventions and can challenge stigmatization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".