Interdependence: The Pathway to the Inclusion of People with Intellectual Disabilities and Immigrant Disability Support Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friendship and social connections generally improve quality oflife and well-being. However, research shows that people with intellectualdisabilities face challenges forming and maintaining friendships. Disabilitysupport workers play an indispensable yet under-recognized role indeveloping friendships with people with intellectual disabilities. Becausedisability support workers are disproportionately immigrant women, as theyfacilitate the inclusion of their clients, they too experience social isolation.After conducting in-depth interviews with disability support workers livingin Edmonton, Canada, for my master’s thesis project, I offer the followingobservations. First, staff and clients became friends with one another in partdue to weak family ties and limited social networks. Second, relationships thatfelt genuine helped staff better understand their clients and gave the staff adeeper sense of purpose in life. Third, the context, environment, and frequencyof meetings were essential for the development of friendships. Fourth,friendships among people both with and without disabilities were crucial forcommunity development. Overall, based on these interviews I suggest thatgenuine friendships between people with intellectual disabilities and careworkers can help foster a sense of belonging and are integral to community-building. My research also suggests that the meaning of friendship ought tobe expanded beyond current understandings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".