Women with developmental disabilities and sexual abuse : an analysis of the (draft) practice guidelines for Part 3 of the Adult Guardianship Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This modified case study critically explores the issue of women with developmental disabilities and sexual abuse and analyzes the (Draft) Ministry of Children and Family Development Practice Guidelines (policy) developed in response to the Adult Guardianship Act (Part 3) Support and Assistance to Abused and Neglected Adults (the Act). This project is grounded in a comprehensive review of the literature relating to women with disabilities and abuse. The development of the Act and policy are explored in both historical and contemporary contexts. It has been estimated that women with disabilities risk of abuse ranges from one and a half to five times greater than women without disabilities of similar age. This project will posit that negative assumptions and beliefs play a major role in socially constructed myths and stereotypes that act to negate women with disabilities. The root causes of society's negative attitude towards people with disabilities are a subscription to the medical model of disability and, more generally, capitalist society which inherently devalues people with developmental disabilities. This project seeks to analyze the Act through the framework of a social model of disability. A social model of disability contends that disability is the outcome of social arrangements which work to limit the activities of people with impairments by erecting social barriers. The policy does not address major structural barriers individuals with disabilities face. For instance, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and unemployment. The policy does however, help to create awareness of the issue of abuse among women with disabilities and additionally, their right to self-determination. Finally, the Act acknowledges that abuse is a community problem through the creation of Community Response Networks which may help to alleviate abuse through education and ultimately societal change.--Page ii.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".