Who Needs to Fit in? Who Gets to Stand out? Communication Technologies Including Brain-Machine Interfaces Revealed from the Perspectives of Special Education School Teachers Through an Ableism Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some new and envisioned technologies such as brain machine interfaces (BMI) that are being developed initially for people with disabilities, but whose use can also be expanded to the general public have the potential to change body ability expectations of disabled and non-disabled people beyond the species-typical. The ways in which this dynamic will impact students with disabilities in the domain of special education is explored. Data was drawn from six special education school teachers from one school in Calgary, Alberta. Five sub-themes (social acceptance, not adding to the impairment, fear of judgement by society, pursuing “normality” and meeting the demands of society) were identified that fit under the main identified theme of “fitting in by not standing out”. Findings demonstrate a dichotomy in participant views of non- or socially acceptable communication devices. The perception of BMI technology was also explored among special education school teachers, revealing benefits and challenges with the uptake of this technology for students with disabilities. Perceptions of people with disabilities and ableism are presented as conceptual frameworks to interpret the influence and impact of the findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".