Moving through the system: The ruling relations of migration, mobility, and childhood disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is about institutional interactions of young disabled children and families who have migrated or have travelled to access services. Through an institutional ethnography, I seek to understand these families’ everyday activities and to make the invisible work of these families visible, and ultimately to interrogate the systems connected to childhood disability and different forms of human movement. For this dissertation, I examined longitudinal data from the Inclusive Early Childhood Service System Project (IECSS; 2021). The IECSS project is an institutional ethnography, a methodology originally developed by the Canadian sociologist and feminist studies scholar, Dorothy Smith (2006). The central problematic of interest for this dissertation was the intersection of childhood disability and human movement in the form of transnational migration, internal migration, and travelling to access services. Through this institutional ethnography, I entered into the everyday experiences of disabled children and their families through the standpoint of the IECSS family informants from across Canada. An analysis of the institutional maps, interview transcripts, and attribute tables led to six (6) key findings: (1) Migration and travelling: What is the context of human movement and childhood disability?; (2) People move, texts stay still; (3) Duplication and replication of services across different communities; (4) Formal and informal support networks: making it work when you’re mobile; (5) The importance of gaining perceived and official citizenship status and; (6) Restarting the process: The added work on families and disabled children. The findings of this study are significant for research, policy, and practice in the area of early childhood, disability, and human movement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".