Entre disability studies et études sur le handicap : 40 ans d’enjeux d’accès, de traduction et d’éducation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’émergence des disability studies a vu le jour principalement au Canada anglais, aux États-Unis et en Angleterre pendant les années 1980. Si la Society for Disability Studies a été fondée à Maryville au Tennesse en 1982, il a fallu attendre jusqu’en 2004 avant que l’Association canadienne d’études sur le handicap (ACÉH-CDSA) ne voie le jour. Bien que cette association soit bilingue, le long laps de temps précédent sa création est représentatif d’un enjeu plus large : quarante ans après l’arrivée de ce champ d’études dans le monde anglo-saxon, force est de constater qu’il existe toujours un retard dans la littérature québécoise et franco-canadienne à cet égard. Cet article vise à encourager une prise de conscience sociale sur ces enjeux d’accès, de traduction, mais aussi d’éducation. C’est à travers mon regard de chercheure, d’activiste et de femme neurodivergente francophone québécoise que je souhaite proposer des pistes de réflexion pour problématiser l’absence de programmes de baccalauréat dans ce domaine d’études en français.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".