Definitions of Disability in Canadian Disability Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If a government is to fulfill its obligations in a democracy, defining administrative categories of need and entitlement is one of the ways it discharges its duties toward citizens (Hedlund, 2009). The judicious definition of those eligible for certain considerations is the basis for distributive justice. It not only ensures that those in need receive their share; it also reassures the population as a whole that government is discharging its duties and its resources with all due deliberation and efficiency. Administrative definitions of disability attempt to ensure that all those in legitimate need are deemed eligible, while those not eligible are prevented from exhausting the system’s resources. Yet the very process of categorizing or classifying disability is seen by some as undermining the value of the individual, and contributing to labelling or stereotyping. As the Government of Canada’s 2003 report states in its title, defining disability is a complex issue (Office for Disability Issues, Human Resources Development Canada, 2003). In fact, it is a political minefield of perceived infractions of rights, preferences, identities and ideologies. This report discusses historical and modern definiitions of disability and the societal understanding which contributed to defining disability in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".