MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302244006 · doi:10.18061/dsq.v36i1.3734

Brokenness / Transformation: Reflections on Academic Critiques of L'Arche

2016· article· en· W2302244006 on OpenAlexaff
Madeline Burghardt

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability Studies Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEpistemologyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'Arche, an international federation of communities for adults with intellectual disabilities, has been critiqued by disability studies scholars throughout its fifty-year history due to its religiosity, its apparent lack of a rigorous stance on the need to address policy concerning people with disabilities, its philosophy concerning disability's meanings, and features of its language and discourse. I address these concerns as someone who is both an academic and a long-term member of a L'Arche community. While there is historically limited and uneasy interaction between these two communities, I suggest there is potential for mutual and worthwhile exchange from theoretical and practical perspectives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability Studies QuarterlySame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207