Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Canadian disability rights movement, with regards to autism specifically, there has been a shift towards recognizing what is called a social model of disability. Through this movement, there has been a desire to incorporate that model into practice in governments, institutions, and healthcare. This desire also stems from advocate-centric and first-voice communities, where disabilities like autism are not viewed through a deficit-based lens. This article aims to discuss the often polarizing social and medical models of disability, comparing their uses in the disability world while weighing their respective benefits. Finally, an alternative model of disability that intersects these models is discussed as an alternative. This model is called the International Classification of Functioning, which recognizes three levels that impair a disabled person: the body, the person, and the environment. It is from this focus that policy can be developed to answer the calls of the pan-disability movement; to provide equitable changes across services and domains that are rightly deserved for Autistic and disabled people.
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 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".