MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480265129 · doi:10.22329/celt.v3i0.3251

21. Enriching Social Work Through Interdisciplinary Disability Studies

2010· article· en· W1480265129 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Irene Carter, Christine Quaglia, Donald R. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisability studiesPerspective (graphical)CurriculumSociologyWork (physics)PedagogyEngineering ethicsSocial workMedical model of disabilityLearning disabilityPoint (geometry)PsychologySocial scienceDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper recommends that faculties of Social Work incorporate Disability Studies in their curriculum by embracing its interdisciplinary deconstructionist perspective. Disability Studies encourages Social Work to move beyond person-in–the-environment and anti-oppressive approaches to find more effective ways of removing barriers for persons with disabilities, and new opportunities to include them in the larger culture. Discussing the critical nature of Disability Studies, the authors point out how Social Work is learning to embrace the interdisciplinary nature of Disability Studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207