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