Critical Reflections on the Process of Developing a Resource Manual for Service Providers Working with Immigrants & Refugees with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents critical reflections on the process of developing a resource manual for service providers who work with immigrants/refugees with disabilities. The development of this manual gave us insight into existing programs which address the intersection between immigration and disability, as well as the paradigms that guide services which target immigrants/ refugees with disabilities. We approached the manual through a postcolonial disability framework which facilitated a critical examination of the operation of ableist and neocolonial discourses within and through settlement practices. The main findings highlight the “siloed” nature of service delivery for immigrants/refugees with disabilities. Findings also illustrate how relevant provincial strategies do not address the intersection between immigration and disability, but rather focus on using immigration to reach other provincial targets. These findings add to the body of existing, albeit scarce, literature which focuses on the immigration-disability nexus and provide important implications for policymaking and service delivery for a largely hidden population of immigrants in Canada.
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 | 0.063 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.075 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".