Reframing Disability, Defining Access: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Accessible Canada Act
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it