Reframing Disability, Defining Access: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Accessible Canada Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project conducts a Critical Discourse Analysis of An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, Bill C-81. The corpus of data examined for this project are all drafts of the Accessible Canada Act, transcripts of meetings in the House of Commons, Senate, and Committees, and the written submissions by members of the disability community and their allies throughout the legislative process to Royal Assent. The analysis demonstrates the tension and dynamics of power, control, ability and disability within the scope of creating new legislation that, arguably, does not dream disability justice. The conclusions drawn from this work are based on Bacchi’s ‘What is the Problem Represented to be’ (WPR) Approach, and the application of insights from biopolitics, critical disability theory, Human rights, disability justice and critical policy theory.
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 | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".