MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards the decolonisation of disability: A systematic review of disability conceptualisations, practices and experiences of First Nations people of Australia

2022· review· en· W4280568748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefanie Puszka, Corinne Walsh, Francis Markham, Jody Barney, Mandy Yap, Tony Dreise

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCharles Darwin UniversityDepartment of Social Services, Australian GovernmentAustralian Government
KeywordsAbleismIndigenousRacismMedical model of disabilitySocial model of disabilitySociologyInclusion (mineral)Stigma (botany)Gender studiesPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many settler-colonial countries, Indigenous people do not access disability services at rates commensurate with disability prevalence. Existing research suggests that services often do not reflect Indigenous values and social practices, impacting on accessibility. Furthermore, disability services have historically been implicated in processes of colonisation. There is an urgent need to decolonise disability services. Understanding Indigenous knowledge and experience of disability is a necessary step towards achieving this. We systematically reviewed the disability conceptualisations, practices and experiences of First Nations peoples of Australia. Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. There was a consensus among these studies that Western constructs of disability do not resonate with many First Nations people across Australia. The studies reported that many First Nations people conceptualise most disabilities as unremarkable conditions that reflect the normal range of human diversity, although some conditions may be associated with social stigma. Inclusive attitudes and practices of caregiving in First Nations families facilitate the participation of First Nations people with disabilities in family and community life. However, ableism and racism in broader society combine to exclude many First Nations peoples with disabilities from public spaces and from labour markets. Disability services regularly fail to reflect First Nations values and social practices, and can lead to further disempowerment and marginalisation due to diagnostic processes; displacement from country and communities; gendered discrimination; and poor relationships with service providers. We argue that intersectional experiences of colonialism, racism, ableism and sexism, particularly in disability services, can lead to the marginalisation of First Nations participants and families. The decolonisation of disability services requires services to embrace diverse First Nations values and practices associated with human capability, social participation and caregiving. Decolonising disability services also necessitates First Nations control of the governance of disability services and reform across service, organisational, systemic and conceptual levels.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207