MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382141489 · doi:10.1080/09687599.2023.2226317

‘Then you realise you can actually do it’: young disabled people negotiating challenges during times of transitioning into adulthood

2023· article· en· W4382141489 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Sigrún Ingimarsdóttir, Kristín Björnsdóttir, Yani Hamdani, Snæfríður Þóra Egilson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability & Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRannís
KeywordsNegotiationConstructivist grounded theoryGrounded theoryFocus groupPsychologyDisabled peopleDisability studiesQualitative researchAbleismSociologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSocial scienceApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored disabled people’s reflections and experiences regarding the challenges they faced when negotiating transitioning to adulthood. It was informed by critical disability studies and youth studies. Four focus group interviews were conducted with altogether 21 participants, 10 men and 11 women with different impairments. A constructivist grounded theory approach was applied to categorise and synthesise data. Participants had faced a myriad of barriers while transitioning into adulthood, such as inaccessible environments, ableist ideas about disabled people as being dependent and childlike, lack of expectations and inadequate supports. Participants resisted these ableist ideals but simultaneously underscored their want to aspire transitional norms in order to live a valued adult life. The importance of having real choices and opportunities was pivotal. The findings underline the importance of dismissing the ableist ideas that persistently exclude young disabled people. Acknowledging different ways of being and doing is key at times of transitioning.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability & SocietySame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207