MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7154826244 · doi:10.59236/emro.v27i12a83

Unloved

2025· article· W7154826244 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanna Colosi

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Media Reviews Online · 2025
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDisability Rights and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSilenceFilm directorDocumentationInstitutionDocumentary film

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Distributed by Good DocsProduced by Barri Cohen, Craig Baines, Peter Raymont, and Steve OrdDirected by Barri Cohen2021, Streaming, 88 mins Filmmaker Barri Cohen directs this very personal documentary as she investigates what happened to her two half-brothers, Alfred and Louis, who spent their entire short lives in the Huronia Regional Centre. Huronia was an institution for people labeled with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, Canada. Many members of her family had little knowledge of Alfred and Louis. Cohen herself appears on camera, as do many members of her family, but the film is less about them and more about what atrocities Cohen uncovers. At the start of the film, Cohen presents the many names the Huronia has held over the decades, (it was open from 1945 to 2009) labels that today read as ugly, outdated, and deeply offensive. The film then moves fluidly between interviews, archival footage, historical documentation and Cohen’s conversations with disability advocates, families who also had siblings institutionalized, and survivors of Huronia. Viewers are shown documents, and read about the children through these documents, and it was gut wrenching. Children were left in cribs unattended, left in soiled diapers all day, did not play or interact with others, and suffered from so many diseases and infections that were at best, not well treated, and at worst, possibly led to early deaths. We also see how these “official records” often hide or omit the truth; in some cases, even the locations of children’s graves were lost or intentionally hidden. The silence from Huronia mirrors the omissions within Cohen’s own family regarding her brothers. As difficult as it is to READ about the horrors at Huronia, it is more heartbreaking hearing from the survivors themselves. These scenes are quiet but powerful. Cohen walks the grounds of the former institution with survivors as they recount abuse, neglect, and the dehumanizing routines of daily life. As she uncovers what happened to her brothers, a clearer picture emerges of a system that treated disabled children as disposable and forgotten. Survivors describe their efforts to seek justice through a class-action lawsuit, the first of its kind, against the Ontario government and their disappointment when the case was settled out of court, leaving the full extent of the systemic harm largely unheard by the public. There are moments of compassion as well, especially when survivors talk about each other and about the people who protected them or offered comfort when no adults would. The documentary does not shy away from the devastation, nor should it; viewers need to understand the full extent of the harm that occurred. At points, it was very difficult to watch, especially in scenes where the conditions of Huronia were described, and the descriptions of physical and sexual abuse and neglect the children suffered. Although this is a Canadian film, it is important to note that similar institutions and similar abuses existed throughout the United States. In fact, the horrors that emerged from these facilities helped spark the U.S. movement toward deinstitutionalization. Public outrage pushed Congress to pass the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975, establishing civil rights protections and requiring that disabled children receive a free and appropriate public education from infancy through age 21. This documentary is a reminder of how hard-won those gains were and how vulnerable they remain, especially as disability rights in the United States continue to face political and legislative challenges. The film moves slowly, and the stories the survivors tell are difficult to listen to, I myself had to stop the film at several points because I had to compose myself, it was very upsetting at points. So, for classroom use, it might be beneficial to show specific segments for discussion, particularly those that address the way the documents were kept or more accurately, not kept, the survivors’ testimony, and the discussions on the civil suit. Instructors should be aware that some scenes include accounts of abuse and trigger warnings may be advised as these scenes might be emotionally difficult for viewers. A note on language: The film includes outdated terminology and language historically used to refer to people with disabilities, that are now understood to be harmful or offensive. The film raises important questions about the legacy of institutional care, the government’s role and responsibility in shaping the treatment of disabled people, and the ongoing need for disability rights and meaningful advocacy. This documentary is highly recommended, not only because it explores the filmmaker’s own family story, but because it illustrates a broader history of institutions and the injustices, neglect and abuse endured by those placed within them. It would be a great addition to an academic library and work well in courses in Disability Studies, Health Sciences, Human Services, Public Policy, Psychology, Counseling, and Social Work. Awards:Rogers Audience Award for Best Canadian Doc, Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Film Festival; Audience Award for Best Canadian Documentary, Bronx Social Justice Matters Film Festival; Best Picture Editing – Documentary, Directors Guild of Canada Awards; Kat Award for Best Documentary, Together! Disability Film Festival; Inclusive Media Award, Community Living Ontario

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,832
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,000

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0070,004
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,8320,591

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 Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,442
Écart entre enseignants0,378 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Media Reviews OnlineMême sujetDisability Rights and RepresentationTravaux en français237 207