The Lifetime Costs Associated with Living with a Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013 the CDPA was contracted by the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to undertake a literature review on lifetime costs associated with disability as part of the scheduled legislative review of the Registered Disability Savings Plan (2011). This paper represents a portion of the information generated for the government in that process. This review of literature used a scoping review methodology to assemble knowledge from international peer-reviewed and grey literature on the methods and results of estimates of the lifetime cost of disability. The scoping review was conducted according to the five-step approach outlined by Arksey and O’Malley: question specification, search design, article selection, data organization, reporting (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquohoun & O’Brien, 2010). The question addressed in the review was: What is currently known about the extraordinary expenses associated with living with a disability? In summary, this review has shown the strained economic circumstances of individuals and families affected by disability. The evidence is robust that there are extraordinary costs, particularly in the areas of health and medical expenses, environmental adaptations and transportation. This literature is complex and difficult to summarize because of different methodologies, different costs included, different currencies, different years and different types and severities of disability. The literature suggests that Canada is on the cusp of a paradigm shift in domestic economic policy – from one based on income to one based on assets (Boshara et al., 2006).
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".