Social isolation continued: Covid-19 shines a light on what self-advocates know too well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covid-19 has been an unprecedented time for social work as a profession and even more so for marginalized communities. This paper shares the reflections of three self-advocates (persons labelled/with intellectual disabilities engaged in advocacy and activism), a social worker, and a social work educator and researcher. It is intended as a rallying cry for social work to rethink how we deliver services to ensure that people who have already been made vulnerable through oppressive ableist practices and assumptions are not put at greater disadvantage at times like Covid-19. Hearing directly from self-advocates, we learn of their exclusion from pandemic planning, and of the ways that physical and social distancing protocols have worked to exacerbate the isolation, marginalization and inequities that people labelled/with intellectual disabilities have experienced over the years. We are called upon to more actively focus on advocacy efforts with people labelled/with intellectual disabilities to increase their involvement in planning, as well as access to supports, and to ensure that they do not remain "the left behind of the left behind" .
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".