MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond Prejudice: Thinking toward Genuine Inclusion

2005· article· en· W1980942829 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
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