Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alberta government is immersed in a full review of the Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD) program responsible for the delivery of services and supports to adults with developmental disabilities. With a budget of close to $1billion, PDD funds over 12,000 adults to receive home living, employment, community access and specialized services from about 160 non-profit and for-profit community disability service providers to help individuals live in their communities as inclusively and independently as possible. Despite being one of the most reviewed public programs in the province and having a series of funding increases in recent years, the program is viewed by program beneficiaries, their families, service providers and advocates as fraught with challenges. The review and the period following it during which recommendations will be made and debated provide an important window to influence policy reform. Often public programs like PDD, are dynamic products of historical factors, forces and processes. This paper traces the evolution of policies and service responses for individuals with developmental disabilities in Alberta from the birth of the province in 1905 to the present day. Four transformative shifts in this policy field are identified, associated with: (i) legalized institutionalization and the medical model of disability; (ii) deinstitutionalization movement; (iii) social model of disability; (iv) and neoliberal reforms. The paper provides a historical perspective describing how Alberta’s developmental disability policies and service models have been shaped by societal shifts in views towards disability as by the province’s unique socio-political characteristics. The paper makes visible the present-day legacies of these forces in the beliefs, values and normative influences underpinning current structures, mechanisms and policy approaches. The objective is to situate existing disability policy within the context of its historical evolution to provide deeper insight for reform.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".