Comparing integration and inclusion between Canadians and Americans with disabilities: Evidence from national surveys of time use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Canada moves toward the passage of a federal statute assuring access and inclusion for disabled persons, inevitable comparisons arise between the statutory environments for people with disabilities in Canada and the USA. In previous research, we have used daily time use as a macro indicator of the degree of integration of people with disabilities into the wider society. If statutory protection of disabled persons is effective, activity participation should be similar between persons with and without disabilities in jurisdictions that are favorable to full participation. This paper provides the analysis of national survey data on time use in the United States and Canada for 2010. It shows that the dissimilarity of time use by persons with and without disabilities is smaller for Canadians than for Americans. This finding shows that disabled Canadians are more integrated into their wider society than disabled Americans. Paid work is one activity where Canadians and Americans with and without disabilities are most dissimilar. Regression analysis of time spent in paid work indicates that, with demographic and economic descriptors held constant, the American residency does not promote an advantage in paid work which is a key indicator of integration. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of statutory protections for persons with disabilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".