Younger disabled adults in long-term care : a Foucauldian genealogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presumption is that long-term care institutions are seniors’ homes, but 7% of the population is between the ages of 19 and 64 (Statistics Canada, 2016). These younger disabled adults report great dissatisfaction with their lives, anecdotally and through the available literature. This research uses a Foucauldian genealogical approach to look at why this is so, and how it has happened, and views all of this work through a Critical Disability Lens. Foucault (1974) considered his works to be “a kind of toolbox” (p. 523), and as such, there is no single method for a genealogy. I begin this research by establishing the Present, the lived experience today, by extended interviews with three younger disabled adults currently living in long-term care, and a media analysis that captures the thoughts of a further 19 people. This Present is then problematized. First, I present a brief examination of the long history of institutionalization, from the Elizabethan Poor Laws up to the establishment of British Columbia’s long-term care program in 1978. Then, I investigate the long-term care program through a document analysis, positioning the available governmental documents against the concurrent opinions of civil society. The outcome of this research is a narrative genealogy that pieces together this story. I demonstrate that attitudes towards disabled people have been hard wired into our society, and I show that these younger disabled adults are forgotten and invisible, with policies and practices failing to take their unique needs into consideration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".