Advancing Inclusive Policies for Children and Youth with Disabilities in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant gaps in disability-inclusive policy. Children and youth with disabilities encountered heightened difficulties due to barriers already in place at the onset of the pandemic. While policy responses to public health crises tend to offer "universal" measures, individuals with disabilities face intersecting vulnerabilities that require targeted attention. Policies in place before and during the pandemic failed to provide the necessary supports to navigate these challenges effectively. The pandemic revealed an urgent need for comprehensive and targeted disability policies that consider intersectional vulnerabilities, diverse healthcare needs, and barriers to access. This study aimed to explore how lessons learned from the pandemic can guide the creation of equitable policies that support children and youth with disabilities in Alberta. A virtual focus group was conducted using the Nominal Group Technique. Participants included youth with disabilities, families of children and youth with disabilities, and non-profit stakeholders. The goal of the focus group was to better understand the challenges and barriers that disabled children, youth, and their families faced during the pandemic to inform future inclusive disability-policy recommendations. Data gathered from the focus group was transcribed to text so that participant responses to policy recommendations could be effectively analyzed. Based on the focus group findings and current literature, the following policy recommendations are offered to policymakers in Alberta: 1. Recognize disability services as essential services to ensure continuous access. 2. Design fair and sustainable economic supports for parents/caregivers of children & youth with disabilities. 3. Co-design policy with relevant stakeholders, including children & youth with disabilities, their families, service providers, and community organizations. 4. Implement a flexible design for disability programs and healthcare services, prioritizing a patient-centric approach. 5. Reduce reliance on the education system to provide all types of services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".