MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991536783 · doi:10.1080/14733285.2011.638179

Looking through the learning disability lens: inclusive education and the learning disability embodiment

2012· article· en· W1991536783 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Athena Goodfellow

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren s Geographies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMinistère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement de l’Ontario
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)SociologyPrejudice (legal term)PedagogyDisability studiesLearning disabilityPerspective (graphical)PublishingQualitative researchSpecial educationAbleismPsychologySocial scienceGender studiesSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusion as an educational approach for students with disabilities is a widely debated topic. The concept of inclusion is often referred to as a philosophy that all pupils – regardless of ability and other differences – should be included within age-appropriate community schools [Stainback, S.B. and Stainback, W. eds., 1996. Inclusion: a guide for educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Artiles, A.J. and Kozleski, E.B., 2007. Beyond convictions: interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education. Language Arts, 84 (4), 357–365]. This educational approach has been scrutinized for its capacity to meet the needs of students with and without disabilities Lindsay, G., 2003. Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British journal of special education, 30 (1), 3–12; Kauffman, J.M. and Hallahan, D.P., 2005. Special education: what it is and why we need it. Toronto, Canada: Pearson; McPhail, J.C. and Freeman, J.C., 2005. Beyond prejudice: thinking towards genuine inclusion. Learning disability research and practice, 20 (4), 254–267]. However, as Bodgan and Taylor [1990. Looking at the bright side: a positive approach to qualitative policy and evaluation research. Qualitative sociology, 13 (2), 183–192.] point out, the ‘does it work’ framework for analyzing inclusion programs for persons with disabilities is not beneficial to practitioners and researchers who believe that ‘integration into society is a moral question rather than an empirical one’ (p. 187). Instead of questioning whether inclusion ‘works’ or is ‘effective’ for students with learning disabilities (SLD), this study uses a critical geography perspective to examine from the SLDs' perspective how educational spaces are as socially and discursively constructed as places of inclusion and exclusion. This paper also examines interest in how these constructions of places are situated in relation to provincial and regional inclusive education policies.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.058
Scholarly communication0.0170.032
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren s GeographiesSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207