Pandemic-related experiences of older adults and people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had wide reaching effects especially for people with disabilities. Drawing on Sen's Capability approach, we explored experiences of people with disabilities and older adults using semi-structured interviews that were conducted three to four months after the pandemic was declared. We recruited 71 adults from British Columbia, Canada: adults with spinal cord injuries (n = 22), adults who have experienced a stroke (n = 26), adults with general disabilities (n = 13), and older adults (over the age of 65) without reported disabilities (n = 10). Our analysis identified one overarching theme: "navigating the new normal: the societal reconfiguration of functionings and capabilities" described the challenges and successes participants experienced during pandemic-related restrictions and regulations. This theme encapsulated three sub-themes: 1) "Trying to stay connected: resuming functionings via alternative means," 2) "Worrying about future capability opportunities," and 3) "Wanting to exert control in the face of constrained capabilities." The pandemic created unique challenges for people with disabilities. The capability approach appears to be a helpful lens to interpret pandemic restrictions among people with disabilities, which could inform future policy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".