“I Can Understand Where They’re Coming From”: How Clinicians’ Disability Experiences Shape Their Interaction With Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students and clinicians with disabilities are underrepresented in the academic health programs and professional clinical settings. Disability studies foregrounds the unique ways of knowing and being that clinicians with disabilities can offer. Based on a larger grounded theory study of the experiences of students and clinicians with disabilities, this article examines the role that clinicians’ abilities to draw on their personal experiences of living with a disability have on their interactions with clients. The analysis of semistructured interviews with 55 students and clinicians with disabilities from different fields contributes to the development of a theory of epistemic connection. The theory is informed by the following three themes: (a) building rapport through understanding, (b) from understanding to advocacy and creative approaches, and (c) between professionalism and disability. The findings emphasize not only the importance of diversifying the health care workforce but also incorporating disability epistemology into the health care culture.
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 | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".