A rapid review informing an assessment tool to support the inclusion of lived experience researchers in disability research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appreciating that progress is being made in terms of valuing researchers with lived experience in research about disability, far more efforts are nonetheless needed to redress ableism and to further advance inclusion. Addressing this policy issue, this rapid review aims to inform researchers with disability and their genuine allies about: a) scholarly discussions concerning the inclusion of researchers with lived experience of disability in lived experience led or co-produced disability research; and b) a practical disability research assessment tool to support this greater inclusion. The review was informed by thematic analysis as applied to 13 publications retrieved from a rapid review of ProQuest Central, Scopus, Education Source, Google Scholar and Google Chrome databases. An additional six publications were identified from peer suggestions and hand searches of citations. The three themes identified each inform about ways of including people with lived experience of disability in research about disability across respective areas of designing disability research, conducting disability research, and disseminating and evaluating disability research findings. This exploratory paper offers a preliminary, evidence-based assessment tool to help to include more researchers with lived experience of disability as leaders and co-producers of disability research.
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 | 0.042 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".