Human Rights and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: Historical, Pedagogical, and Philosophical Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with intellectual disabilities are more likely to experience victimization and have their rights infringed upon than are people without such disabilities. While legislative and policy interventions have afforded a certain degree of protection against such rights violations, people with intellectual disabilities continue to experience restrictions of their basic human rights. This article describes the development of a Human Rights Project being developed in Canada and aimed at promoting human rights awareness in individuals with intellectual disabilities. Following a brief history of the project, we focus on its current phase: the development of a multimedia human rights training CD. We address the empirical and pedagogical foundations for the use of simulated instruction, aspects of the project that reflect its participative orientation, and the use of dramaturgical methods for training persons with intellectual disabilities to be actors in the video scenarios that appear on the training CD. We conclude by highlighting the importance of a systemic approach to human rights training, as well as the implications of such an approach for understanding the relationally and situationally emergent nature of human rights knowledge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".