Systems, definitions and identity : the socio-political disability/illness identity triangle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lived experiences of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are explored visá-vis: 1) disability support program & service systems, & disability organizations, including a Disability Rights Organization & a Disease-Specific Voluntary Health Agency; 2) definitions of disability & chronic illness in Disability Studies, Feminist Disability & Population Health Discourse & definitions in disability policy; &, 3) self & collective identity before & after diagnosis vis-á-vis the first two dimensions.Qualitative participatory methods ouflined by Ristock & pennell (1996) were used.The study was guided by an advisory committee of people with MS, the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities (MLPD) & the Multiple sclerosis society of canada, Manitoba Division (MSSC).A sample of s women and 1 man, reflecting a broad representation of socio-economic, ethnic background, living arrangement, MS related impairments & association with primarily the MSSC found the following: 1) 'disability identity' is viewed negatively, influenced also by experience prior to MS; 2)the existence of a disconnect between critical awareness of social model definitions, self identity, & group identífícation; 3) cognitive dissonance caused by contradictions between policy definitions and self identity; 4) perceptions of definitions of 'disability' & 'chronic illness' are as varied as those in the literature; 5) accessing support services pre & post MS is dramatically different.The implications of these findings are discussed.ilt
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".