Social isolation continued: Covid-19 shines a light on what self-advocates know too well
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it