MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178823761

Editorial: Frames and debates for disability, childhood and the global South: Introducing the Special Issue

2015· editorial· en· W2178823761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erica Burman, Anat Greenstein, Manasi Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisability studiesMedical model of disabilityPower (physics)GlobalizationSociologyChildhood studiesEmbodied cognitionField (mathematics)Gender studiesPolitical sciencePsychologyEpistemologyDevelopmental psychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of disability, as readers of this journal will be aware, is rooted in the epistemology of disability studies, seeing it not as a medical state contained within the body or mind of a person, but as a socially created phenomenon that takes its shape through social relations, cultural representations, and modes of production and reproduction. This means that disability cannot be discussed in universal or generalised terms, but always requires attention to the specific embodied, social, cultural and economic contexts in which it occurs. This special issue, therefore, seeks to explore the interconnections and intersections of disability, childhood, and South/North relations, three areas that are rarely examined together 1 . Disability and childhood: rationale and mutual configurations Disability studies is a relatively new academic field that has emerged in part from the disability rights movement and social change activism, spurred largely by people labelled and marginalized as ‘disabled’ in the UK and USA (Thomas, 2004). As such, many of the debates in the field focus on the economic and cultural contexts of the global North. These debates often assume the availability of advanced medical, educational and welfare services and discuss the relations of power within such services (Grech, 2009). Further, while disability studies in North contexts often assumes impairment to be caused by natural and unavoidable conditions, bodies also bear the mark of global power, and the social analysis of disability (particularly in relation to global South contexts) cannot ignore the ways bodies are constructed and impacted through the economic conditions of globalization and postcolonialism (Erevelles, 2014; Grech and Soldatic, 2015; Meekosha, 2011; Meekosha and Soldatic, 2011). Many of the papers in this issue explore how disability is created within different local and national contexts that have been colonized, and which are impacted by increased poverty and global inequality such as Kenya (Corcoron), India (Vaidya), Vietnam (Burr) and Brazil (Do Nascimento et al.). Other authors in this special issue consider NorthSouth relations and how these frame our understandings of disability and childhood (see Nixon et al; and Wolbring and Ghai), or focus on communities impacted by colonialism and extreme poverty, even when geographically located in the global North, such as indigenous people in Canada (see the article by Stienstra).

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207