State Sanctioned Poverty and Death for the Disabled: Durkheim's Fatalistic Suicide and Income Support Coverage for ODSP Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emile Durkheim's investigation of suicide as a sociological phenomenon is relevant to the classical context and able to be expanded upon to account for current socio-political trends that have altered the landscape since his death. Specifically, Durkheim perceived fatalistic suicide as occurring under conditions when people experienced excessive regulation, had their futures pitilessly blocked and their passions violently choked by oppressive discipline. By comparison, my research explored recent socio-political contexts imbued under Canadian welfare state structures and found evidence of conditions like those envisioned by Durkheim existing for those reliant on Ontario's income support system for people with disabilities (Ontario's Disability Support Program/ODSP) as their sole source of livelihood. Consistent with a present-day Durkheim example, current Canadian social policy decisions made by successive Ontario governments have facilitated the case for fatalistic suicide for those people with disabilities lacking in personal and financial supports such that they become reliant on our provincial social safety net income support systems for their sole source of basic needs, hence survival supports. Complementing said, once the Parliament of Canada passed federal legislation in June 2016 allowing eligible Canadian adults to request medical assistance in dying (MAiD) alignment occurred between such bleak state-sanctioned and enforced conditioning and a compatible option of exercising self-determination and social choice for ending life through suicide rather than continuing to live a life of state-sanctioned tyranny. This session will explore the ODSP recipient experience consistent with those people considering and/or having committed MAiD within Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".