A qualitative analysis of housing and homemaking for people labelled/with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine people labelled/with intellectual disabilities’ experiences of their current homes and what they imagine or desire for their home in the future. Definitions of home in Canadian and Ontario policy are based on neoliberal and ableist notions of the dwelling and leave out other important elements of home. In this article, we will use quotes and artwork from a broader study to argue for a broadening of the definition of housing for people so labelled, in line with position statements from Inclusion Canada and People First of Canada (PFC), as well as the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). These findings draw on the importance of social connections, community resources, and accessibility in shaping the home and also highlight the felt limitations of the current system. By understanding what these limitations are, it is possible to understand what needs to change for the future to fit with the needs of people labelled/with intellectual disabilities.In recent decades, access to housing in community settings has been a priority for people labelled/with intellectual disabilities in many developed countries. While community living is recognized as an important goal, it has often been harder to achieve in practice given a shortage of appropriate housing choices and difficulties accessing supports. More work is also needed to ensure that views and preferences of people labelled/with intellectual disabilities inform the development of new housing options. In this article, we employ a qualitative, arts-informed methodology to examine the housing experiences and aspirations of a small group of people labelled/with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, Canada. Our analysis focuses on three related elements of participants’ experience of housing and home: the immediate dwelling and living arrangements, the supportive relationships that sustain people in their housing, and the social and environmental amenities within the neighbourhood. We then discuss the broader significance of this research with respect to housing provision, highlighting issues of choice, support, and connection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".