MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2025957781 · doi:10.1353/aad.0.0131

Partners in Education: The 21st International Congress on Education of the Deaf: Vancouver, British Columbia July 2010

2010· article· en· W2025957781 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald F. Moores

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican annals of the deaf · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueHearing Impairment and Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDeaf educationOral historyArticulation (sociology)SociologyPolitical scienceLawSign languagePoliticsLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Partners in EducationThe 21st International Congress on Education of the Deaf: Vancouver, British Columbia July 2010 Donald F. Moores, Editor The 21st International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED), to be held in Vancouver in July, is, in many ways, a reflection of the evolution of our field over more than 130 years. Beginning with the International Congress for the Improvement of the Condition of Deaf-Mutes, held in Paris in 1878, one can trace the development of the field from a patriarchal, hearing dominated, parochial entity toward an attitude of acceptance and mutual respect, as exemplified by the title, "Partners in Education." Certainly, we have a long way to go, but this should not obviate the impressive gains that have occurred and the present willingness to accommodate differences that was not in evidence historically. The Periere Society contributed heavily to the organization and financial support for the first two congresses, Paris, 1878 and Milan, 1880. Descendents of Jacob Periere, who introduced oral education in France in the 18th century, established the Society, with the primary purpose of effecting the general adoption of the oral method. The Congress itself, with 27 delegates, 22 of whom were from France, stated that signs should be retained in instruction but preference should be given to articulation and lipreading. The Conference of Milan, of course, passed the well-known resolutions that the oral method ought to be preferred over signs alone or the simultaneous use of signs and speech. Almost 90% of the delegates were from Italy or France. It is generally assumed that Congresses after 1880 until the latter third of the 20th century were completely dominated by oral-only advocates. This was not necessarily the case. The fourth Congress was held in Chicago, Illinois in 1889. Where attendance for the first three Congresses was predominantly European, 202 of the 211 delegates were from the United States and 5 from Canada, 4 from Great Britain, and none from continental Europe. Opening addresses were interpreted into sign language. Topics included higher education, the importance of deaf teachers, reading, oral instruction, the use of sign language, and the role of deaf teachers. The next four Congresses were held in Europe and the ninth congress was held in West Trenton, New Jersey. They seemed to have relatively little impact on the field. This may be due in part because they were held on a sporadic basis, with little consistency from one to another. In the 43-year period from 1907 (Edinburgh, Scotland) to 1950 (Groningen, the Netherlands), there were only two conferences; one in London (1925) and one in Trenton, New Jersey (1933). In fact the Groningen Congress originally had been scheduled for 1939. The convulsions of World War I (1914 to 1918) and World War II (1939 to 1945) and the worldwide depression of the 1930s curtailed major developments and sharing of information. The 12th Congress, held in Washington, DC, in 1963, had delegates from 49 nations and provided a model for congresses to come, covering an extensive range of topics, including assessment, manual communication, differential diagnosis, reading, audition, and speech. For the first time, several speeches were made by deaf professionals. The next congress, in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1960 expanded on the Washington congress to include even more diversity of participants and perspectives, including needs in developing countries. It was at this congress that the concept of a Total Approach or Total Communication appeared. It was in Tokyo, Japan in 1975, 97 years after the Paris Congress that for the first time an international congress was held outside of Europe and the United States, opening up opportunities for delegates from countries that previously had little or no representation. One resolution called for greater participation by deaf individuals in future congresses. The 1980 Congress, in Hamburg, Germany, continued the trend for more symposia, panels, and lectures. There was spoken translation into German, English, and French and interpretation into German Sign Language, Scandinavian Sign Language, and American Sign Language. [End Page 3] Deaf professionals continued to play an increasing role. Several speakers, aware that the congress was 100 years after the Milan congress, spoke critically of the Milan resolutions and the Hamburg congress took...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,605
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,976

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,338 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican annals of the deafMême sujetHearing Impairment and CommunicationTravaux en français237 207