Perceived Discrimination among People with Self-Reported Emotional, Psychological, or Psychiatric Conditions in a Population-Based Sample of Canadians Reporting a Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of perceived discrimination among people reporting an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition in a population of people with a disability has not been studied. Our study evaluated a model that integrated having an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition while accounting for age, sex, education, employment, marital status, immigration status, and type of community to estimate the prevalence of perceived discrimination in the population of people with a disability. We hypothesized that higher levels of perceived discrimination would occur in people reporting an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition. METHOD: The Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) by Statistics Canada is a postcensual survey of community residents reporting health-related impairments. PALS was used to evaluate the interaction between self-reported emotional, psychological, or psychiatric conditions and demographic variables and the odds of experiencing discrimination. RESULTS: In the overall sample, 14.5% perceived discrimination and 18.2% reported having an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition. Thirty-five per cent of people with such conditions perceived discrimination. When adjusting for covariates, people reporting an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition were 3 times more likely to perceive having been discriminated against than people without such conditions. Across medical conditions, perceived discrimination was higher in people who also reported an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that perceived discrimination and the presence of an emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition frequently co-occur in people with a disability and therefore programs aimed at reducing the discrimination of emotional, psychological, or psychiatric conditions should take this into account.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".