Disability and life satisfaction: Exploring the role of perceived community belonging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While there is growing interest in the association between disability and diminished life satisfaction, few studies have examined the mechanisms that moderate or mediate this relationship. Informed by the stress process model, this study investigates the moderating and mediating roles of perceived community belonging in the association between different types of disability and life satisfaction. Data were drawn from the 2017–2018 Canadian Community Health Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted by Statistics Canada (N = 95,260). Results from ordinary least squares regression models indicate that individuals with any type of disability, and those with two or more disabilities, are more likely to report lower life satisfaction compared to those without disabilities. Moderation analyses suggest that a sense of community belonging buffers against the adverse associations of vision, mobility, and multiple disabilities with life satisfaction. The Karlson–Holm–Breen mediation analyses further reveal that perceived community belonging partially mediates the association between these disability types and life satisfaction. Social workers and policymakers should prioritize community-based interventions that foster social inclusion, strengthen local support networks, and improve access to community resources for individuals with disabilities. Integrating community belonging initiatives into disability services may offer a holistic approach to enhancing well-being among people with disabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".