MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1872235813

Beyond the Monster's Wanting and Doing: Special Education as a Barrier and Diacritical Hermeneutics as Possibility.

2011· article· en· W1872235813 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chris Gilham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHermeneuticsFraming (construction)PhronesisMonsterDehumanizationPedagogyPsychologySpecial educationEpistemologySociologySocial psychologyPhilosophyLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This hermeneutic, interpretive case study reflects on an experience with the placement of a student in a specialized classroom who did not want to be there and had informed educators around her of this prior to her placement. She claimed she would “do anything to get kicked out of the placement” and ultimately, this happened. Through this case study I argue that Special Education policy and its infusion into psychology, especially through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, conceals or limits the possible ways for such students to be because of how we use that language to frame them. Special Education diagnosis and coding are more than labels, I suggest: they are constitutive and we play a role in that constituting action, I argue. Richard Kearney’s Diacritical Hermeneutic approach reveals possibilities for seeing differences outside of the binary of normal / abnormal. Such an approach could allow us to value such students outside the exteriority of Special Education’s framing. We may more openly see their rights as human beings, thus allowing them the space to tell their stories so that we hear them. Concurrently, I suggest we might also critically reflect on our roles in supporting students. Key words: Discourse, psychology, mental health, special education, subject, democracy, phronesis, experience, pedagogy

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationFrench-language works237,207