Recognizing and Respecting the Rights of Children with Disabilities in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and ratified in 1990 by the UN General Assembly, and signed by most member countries of the United Nations. However, its implementation is slow, complex, and can to-date be considered as incomplete in most countries, particularly as children’s rights often seem to be in contradiction with traditional perceptions of children as dependent, immature and incompetent human beings under their parents’ tutelage. Furthermore, it appears that children’s rights are at risk of colliding with the rights of the family. These issues are even more strongly highlighted when it comes to children with disabilities, as those children often are perceived as vulnerable and incompetent. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2006 emphasizes the right to full participation based on the social model of disability, including the right to inclusive education for children with disabilities. This article addresses both conventions, the contradictions within but also with each other, which impede the rights of children with disabilities as much as traditional perceptions of childhood do. It will then demonstrate how the recognition of the rights of children with disabilities can be improved by using the frameworks of sociology of childhood (Corsaro, 2015) and the work on relationship building and solidarity by Honneth (1995). Lastly, the article will give examples of how to implement and respect the rights of children with disabilities in schools, by using the example of the Index for Inclusion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".