Developing and describing a disability language philosophy in a community recreation context: a critical disability studies perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to (1) outline the historical, socio-cultural and political factors influencing disability language philosophies in an English-speaking Canadian context and (2) develop a practical tool in the form of an infographic for describing a critical disability studies-informed philosophy in a community recreation context. This conceptual paper begins by outlining the critical disability studies theoretical framework. Next, a discussion on the evolution of disability language philosophies throughout history is provided, outlining the differences between person-first and identity-first approaches. A specific disability language philosophy that can be used in a community recreation context is described, including five guidelines for disability language use: (1) no defaults, (2) always ask, (3) be intentional, (4) be accountable and (5) be respectful. These guidelines are contextualized with a discussion on intersectional considerations. Last, limitations of the manuscript are addressed along with implications for practitioners and researchers.
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 | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".