“Disability? No. .... Dis(Ease)Ability” When an Innovative Pedagogical Theory Is the Difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a long process of application analysis on the use of various technologies and their peculiarities instrumental in the complex field of education, to facilitate the process of learning competent aimed at achieving the maximum possible autonomy of the students, pathologically deficient compared to the same time of the companions , I have come to grasp the objective fact of blocking or at times, slowing the action of the teachers in these school situations. It showed the lack of a theoretical reference line that was primarily pedagogical about the true identity of educational action with which to understand the Media Education not only in the “school for all” but, above all, in the “education for all”. I have gained so convinced of the need for a pedagogy of action that would change the veil obscured by “formae mentis” anchored to a school, “therapist and / or therapeutic” with a school that was, however, instructive and useful to the cognitive styles of all its users, although complex. Draw up a theoretical path that would put out all the positivity that the action of ‘“educate” has, if properly calibrated and adjusted to the particularities of each, it was my first goal; subsequently, through the analysis of all my experiments with application of various technologies pupils from clinical diagnoses most varied and complex, and the successes each time, I modeled a methodology and didactics of reference, so that the action of the teacher was not limited only to a pragmatism abstract. In fact, I am convinced, that is not the technology but those who lack the “how” and “what” to make the teacher! ...... But, this journey is just beginning .....
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".