Coming to Critical Disability Studies: Critical Reflections on Disability in Health and Social Work Professions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes how four ‘helping’ professionals came to embrace and teach critical disability studies (CDS) perspectives rather than biomedical approaches to impairment and disability that traditionally inform those professions (occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, and speech-language pathology). Sharing examples from our experiences, we describe how we came to question the normative, ableist assumptions of our professional disciplines. We then briefly outline literature demonstrating how critical approaches have been incorporated into professional research and practice and discuss possible obstacles and tensions in adopting more widespread critical approaches into professional spaces. We conclude by suggesting that continued development of connections among scholars and activists within CDS, rehabilitation and social work, and the community, is necessary to ensure that intersectional critical perspectives in relation to disability become a core component of professional training programs.
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 | 0.067 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.178 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".