Deconstructing language practices: discursive constructions of children in Individual Education Plan resource documents
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Individual Education Plan (IEP) resource documents in Ontario, Canada aim to assist children in achieving their special educational goals, a point of disjuncture exists between the documents’ intentions and children’s actual experiences. Addressing this issue is crucial in preventing inequity and fostering educational development and social well-being for children. We employ critical discourse analysis informed by disability theory to deconstruct the language practices used to conceptualize children in IEP resource documents. Our purpose is to question the underlying assumptions regarding representations of children and illuminate the potentially harmful consequences of such conceptions. We expose the presence of both neutral and harmful language practices and consider how such language may shape the way the documents translate from policy to practice. This study offers a model through which the language of other special education documents can be critically evaluated and proposes potential avenues for creating documents that avoid disabling children further.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it