Transgressing Institutional Limits to Access in Post-Secondary Disability Service Offices: A Critical Race Theory and BIPOC Mad Studies Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-Secondary Disability Service Offices (DSOs) have been given particular attention by the Ontario Human Rights Commission through an influx of policy documents released in the past 15 years (OHRC, 2002; OHRC 2003; OHRC, 2004; OHRC 2017; OHRC, 2018). Located at the intersection of Critical Race Theory and BIPOC Mad studies (da Silveira Gorman, 2013), this project seeks to introduce a transnational approach (da Silveira Gorman, 2013) to the analysis of the DSO, by asking the central questions—how are definitions of accessibility mediating systemic marginalization of BIPOC students in DSOs? “What critical representations of disablement have been promoted or sidelined” (da Silveira Gorman, 2018, p. 457) in Ontario post-secondary education? How are eligibility requirements for DSOs reifying categories of identity? \nThis study interviews BIPOC Accessibility Advisors and BIPOC students in Ontario, to understand the barriers which exist for racialized students in the DSO and the institution at large. Reports from Accessibility Advisors and students reveal that the DSO is organized around a conceptualization of “disability history” that generalizes disability as a “white, middle class phenomenon” (da Silveira Gorman, 2018, p. 454), which in turn, impacts BIPOC’s student’s ability to access services in their post-secondary institutions. BIPOC Accessibility Advisors share ways their lived experience has informed the ways they provide services to their BIPOC students. Reports from BIPOC students explicate the manner in which services in the DSO are navigated despite the terrain, and innovative ways students understand themselves within these services. Finally, best practices in DSO service provision are suggested to improve for BIPOC students by challenging the student at centre of the service provision imagination.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".