The Bangladeshi Rights and Protection of Persons With Disability Act of 2013: A Policy Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The government of Bangladesh enacted the Rights and Protection of Persons with Disability Act of 2013 (the Act) in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This article sheds light on the Act with particular emphasis on (a) support offered to children with disabilities (CWDs) and their families to address their needs; and (b) the extent to which the Act is in line with the international disability policy analysis framework. We compared the Act with the 18 core concepts of disability policy developed by Turnbull et al. (2001). The results affirm the government's effort toward Sustainable Development Goals in providing support to CWDs and their families. They indicate a high degree of congruency of the Act with the core concepts. The findings also highlight the need to embrace the concepts of autonomy, confidentiality, and family-centeredness in great detail in any policy initiatives pertaining to CWDs. Furthermore, the finding shows that collaboration and coordination among ministries are imperative to achieve the goal of policies related to disability. In addition, the results highlight the need for more budgetary allocation and robust monitoring systems to track the progress of policy initiatives. As policy implementation is affected by changes in global contexts such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, policymakers in Bangladesh and other low- and middle-income countries should ensure that emergency responses are disability-inclusive and appropriate for CWDs. To ensure a disability-inclusive response, it is critical to engage individuals with disabilities and their families in meaningful consultations to identify their needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".