Protests of People with Disabilities as Examples of Fledgling Disability Activism in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article outlines the causes, course and consequences of the protests of people with disabilities and their carers that took place in Poland in 2014 and 2018 respectively. Said protests took a form of occupation of the Polish parliament building. This was intended to draw attention to the considerable difficulties people with disabilities face, as well as to advocate for raising social benefits. We also describe the process of people with disabilities gaining subjectivity and the role of non-governmental organisations and various experts, including but not limited to academics. Moreover, the article demonstrates circumstances to be considered with regards to disability activism. We argue that the systemic transformation that Poland underwent in 1989 and the following years pertained chiefly to matters relating to improving the country's economic situation. This led to civic matters being treated as less of a priority. Subsequently, people with disabilities became one of the marginalised groups. Their incomplete emancipation has hindered the proper application of the principles of the CRPD. The article was co-written by persons with disabilities, who draw on their experiences, and their non-disabled colleagues in academia who are actively engaged in supporting disability activism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".