MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208562735 · doi:10.14288/1.0402622

Understanding systemic barriers across the lifespan : a human rights inquiry into disability and mothering

2021· article· en· W3208562735 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jewelles Anne-Merrie Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disabled mothers face multiple barriers across the lifespan in accessing information and services related to reproductive and sexual health, and maternal care. Further, disabled mothers face over-surveillance and barriers when raising their children. Despite Canada being a signatory to the CRPD (2006) since 2010, and having legislation that asserts equality for all citizens, many policies, programs and services are inaccessible to women with disabilities. This dissertation takes a unique approach to understanding the experiences of disabled mothers across the lifespan. Combining retroactive qualitative life course history (Priestley, 2000) interviews combined with emancipatory (Barton, 2005) disability human rights monitoring methods (Disability Rights Promotion International, 2010). I ask, from a human rights perspective, what are the experiences of disabled mothers in Canada? How do these experiences impact their daily lives related to reproductive decisions, pregnancy/adoption, and raising children? And, how do women experience access to information about reproductive decisions and choices across the lifespan? Eighteen disabled mothers in two provinces (BC and ON) participated in this research. The data was organized into major life milestones. Five major findings were identified during the research. First, participants consistently faced barriers in accessing factual and accessible information to make informed choices. Second, many spaces that disabled women encounter related to having and raising a family continue to be inaccessible, or only partially accessible. Third, systemic ableism continues to exist both in reproductive, sexual health, and maternal care, and in the spaces where women raise and care for their children. Fourth, once women have a family, affordable, accessible housing and transportation are ongoing barriers. Fifth, many spaces for families, including schools, daycares, and recreational activities are inaccessible to parents with disabilities. Despite legislative rights, disabled women continue to experience barriers to accessing their right to raise a family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.031
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicSocial Policies and Family→French-language works237,207→