The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Canadians Who Are Blind, Deafblind, or Have Low Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB) conducted a survey of Canadians who are blind, deafblind, or have low vision, from June 10 to July 24, 2022, to determine what effect the COVID-19 pandemic had had on this community. The results of this study were compared with those of an almost identical survey conducted in April 2020, at the height of the pandemic. Methods: The 2022 COVID-19 survey comprised 72 questions and was conducted using the SurveyMonkey platform. The survey, conducted in June and July 2022, was given in English only and distributed by email to the CCB member mailing list, as well as the mailing lists of other vision stakeholder organizations across Canada. Results: Responses were received from 572 respondents from all Canadian provinces and one territory. Discussion: Overall, people living with vision loss felt they were doing better than they were at the start of the pandemic. People were traveling outside of their homes. Stress levels were lower, as were the feelings of loneliness and being overwhelmed. However, a significant number of people with vision loss were still experiencing pandemic-related stress and loss of well-being. Although people living with vision loss were coping much better in 2022, it is still important to recognize that a significant number of people are still living with the negative effects of the pandemic. Implications for Practitioners: Practitioners need to be aware that a large number of people are still living with feelings of loneliness and isolation, and they may lack connections to family, friends, or caregivers. It is essential that practitioners connect as often as possible with these clients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".