Experiences and concepts of disability among First Nations peoples of Australia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations peoples of Australia do not access disability support services at rates commensurate with need, and it is widely reported that Western concepts of disability do not reflect First Nations values, beliefs and social practices regarding health and bodily function. We undertook a systematic review of published literature on how First Nations peoples of Australia conceptualise and experience disability. Our methods were informed by best-practice systematic review principles and an Indigenous research methodology. Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Our meta-synthesis confirms that First Nations understandings of ‘disability’ do not necessarily align with conventional Western conceptualisations, and that First Nations people make sense of their experiences and conditions in a variety of ways. Some broad commonalities emerge in the literature in First Nations peoples’ conceptualisations of disabilities as conditions that pertain to family groups as well as individuals. For First Nations peoples, family and community life may involve socially meaningful activities and represent important domains of ‘participation’. Culturally safe disability support services require service providers and policymakers to consider what ‘disability’, ‘participation’ and ‘caregiving’ may mean from a First Nations community’s perspective. Achieving cultural safety in disability support services will require reform at service provider, organisational, systemic and conceptual levels.
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 | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".