Cognitive Accessibility, Ethics, and Rights in Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper is about doing research with artists with learning disabilities and autism. Artists with learning disabilities or autism need to say yes to doing research. Researchers need to explain what will happen in the research. Often, researchers think that people with learning disabilities and autism can’t say yes to being part of research. This means researchers don’t study things that are important to people with learning disabilities and autism. So, people with learning disabilities and autism don’t get a voice. All the people who wrote this work on I’m Me. I’m Me was a research project that works with seven learning disability arts companies in the United Kingdom. We used drama, dance, music and art to understand identity, representation, and voice. This paper explores our approach to ethics on the project. We wanted to avoid what we describe as a “deficit model” of ethics. Instead we worked with learning disabled artists and researchers to develop a set of rights in research. How these rights were communicated was very important in order to ensure access and understanding. I’m Me used a range of methods, including illustrations, workshops, videos, and movement. As a result of this approach, we found artists started independently talking about their rights in research. Plain text abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) This paper is about doing research with artists with learning disabilities and autism. Artists with learning disabilities or autism need to say yes to doing research. So researchers need to explain what will happen in the research. Often, researchers think that people with learning disabilities and autism can’t say yes to being part of research. This means researchers don’t study things that are important to people with learning disabilities and autism. So, people with learning disabilities and autism don’t get a voice. All the people who wrote this work on I’m Me. I’m Me was a research project that works with seven learning disability arts companies in the United Kingdom. We used drama, dance, music and art to understand identity, representation, and voice. We wanted to make sure the artists could decide if they wanted to be a part of the research. To do this we assumed that people with learning disabilities and autism can be a part of research, assumed that people with learning disabilities and autism have rights in research, and did not assume that people with learning disabilities and autism need to be protected. Practically, we used plain language, pictures, We found: Making sure artists knew their rights took time. We needed to talk about artists’ rights several times. But artists understood their rights better when they talked about them more. Giving artists credit for their work is important. But making sure that people reading research don’t know who the research is about is also important. We found it hard to explain when artists’ names would and wouldn’t be used. We needed to experiment to find the best way. Learning how to give people with learning disabilities and autism the information they need to decide if they want to be part of research is important.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,084 | 0,078 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,192 |
| Communication savante | 0,019 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».