Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 29(1) 2004 59 Canadian Disability Policy: Still a Hit-and-Miss Affair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: When the Canadian record on disability policy-making is reviewed a déjà vu discourse is clearly evident. Assessing disability policy reform over recent decades evokes a strong sense that we have been here before in terms of the problems identified and the promises made. From interviews with disability community leaders and documentary analysis, five explanations for this frustrating pace of reform over the last 25 years are examined. These are public attitudes and the lack of information; the relative powerlessness of the disability community; the constraints of economic thinking and public finances; federal-provincial jurisdictional issues; and the absence of robust accountability mechanisms for disability policy within Canada’s welfare state. Drawing on Fou-cault’s concept of governmentality, the article argues that governance arrangements and discursive techniques, and not only programs and benefits, need to be the focus of advocacy and scrutiny by the disability movement and by scholars in disability studies. Résumé: Lorsque l’on examine le dossier canadien d’élaboration des politiques en matière d’invalidité, l’on ne peut s’empêcher d’être envahi par une impression de déjà vu au niveau du dis-cours. De l’évaluation de la réforme des politiques en matière d’invalidité durant ces dernières décennies se dégage une forte sensation de statu quo quant aux problèmes identifiés et aux
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.004 |
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".