Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at how people conceive of Indigenous disability and disability activism in the Canadian disability movement and in Indigenous organizations. Our central question is: How do Indigenous organizations and Canadian disability rights organizations think about Indigenous disability issues? We carry out an analysis of the reports and literature regarding thirteen (13) disability rights and Indigenous organizations. We find confusion about definitions of disability, a lack of disability services in First Nations and in the North, and the extreme marginalization of Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples with disabilities. We also find non-Indigenous disability organizations to be quite silent about Indigenous disability–with a few rare exceptions. The implications of Indigenous leadership for both the disability movement and for the broader issue of truth, healing, and reconciliation between settlers and Indigenous communities are explored at the paper's end. We conclude the disability movement should listen to Indigenous communities and knowledge holders. Disability rights organizations can seek to be evaluated on their practices, like a student on a field placement, in a process of decolonial and Indigenous evaluation within a framework of Indigenous relationality (Rowe, 2022).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".