MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond Prejudice: Thinking toward Genuine Inclusion

2005· article· en· W1980942829 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean C. McPhail, John G. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Disabilities Research and Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Canterbury
KeywordsDisadvantagedPrejudice (legal term)Inclusion (mineral)Learning disabilityPsychologyPedagogySociologyField (mathematics)HegemonyMainstreamingSpecial educationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge of transforming our educational thinking and practices to achieve genuine rather than token inclusion asks that we examine select ideas from the natural and social sciences that have served to colonize the childhood disability field through hegemonic educational discourses. This article examines the colonizing discourses that have limited the possibilities for education available for students with disabilities, particularly those with learning disabilities, through placing them as disadvantaged through a process of being “othered.” We then present three alternative, decolonizing discourses, which open greater possibilities for persons with disabilities through the adoption of an emancipatory rather than a compensatory orientation to learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.111
Scholarly communication0.0140.022
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Disabilities Research and PracticeSame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207