Questions of Right and Left or Right and Wrong: A Disability-Ethics Analysis of the Right-Wing and Left-Wing Media Portrayals of the Latimer Case.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the right and left wing media coverage of the Robert Latimer case, arguing that, in particular, the leftwing progressive portrayal of this case not only creates a “preferred version and vision of social order” (Ericson, Baranek, & Chan,1991, p. 4), but also affirms a utilitarian ethics and a normative framework of reference that can be used in the courts of law to argue for the voluntary and, more importantly, the nonvoluntary euthanasia of “defective” and “deformed” individuals. We further argue that publications of the religious right, most notably Alberta Report, have countered this normative framework of utilitarian ethics by consistently providing space for Tracy Latimer’s story to be told. We conclude this paper with consideration of an alternative ethics that develops Paul Woodruff’s call for a politics and practice of reverence, a secular, as opposed to a religious, praxis that is inclusive and appreciative of all human difference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".