Expanding the quality of life paradigm: Contributions from the field of disability studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article considers the contributions from the field of Disability Studies to the conceptualization of Quality of Life (QOL) for people labelled with Intellectual Disability (ID). We suggest four elements from the field of Disability Studies that may be incorporated into an evolving QOL paradigm. The first element concerns the meaning of disability itself. Those working in contemporary Disability Studies identify societal obstacles and points of inaccessibility as sources of disablement while also recognizing the experience of difference. We suggest this understanding of disability as an interaction between a person and the social world/environment may be included more explicitly in QOL conceptualization. A responsive and adaptable definition of disability in the QOL paradigm is recommended. The second element is the recognition of relationality. The field of contemporary disability studies challenges the value of considering a person's disability as a solitary medical experience and questions the goals of independence, instead considering the value in interdependence and community. This could be included in the QOL paradigm by further emphasizing the importance of relationships and contributions of those labelled with ID. The third element is participatory design and epistemic justice, making space for people labelled with ID to contribute to research and direct the course of their own lives and supports. This element of self‐determination is important to QOL but an increase in participatory research, service, and support design in the field is recommended. The final element is intersectionality, the idea that the experience of disability must be understood in the context of other points of identity or marginalization such as race, gender, and sexuality. We recommend that the QOL paradigm should allow for these additional elements to be included in further design and research in the field.
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 | 0.006 | 0.495 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".