Emancypacja poprzez edukację a perspektywa Konwencji o Prawach Osób Niepełnosprawnych
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the eighth human rights convention enacted by the United Nations. Coming into force in 2008, it is the first international instrument specifically directed toward persons with disabilities. In its articulation of a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of stig-ma and discrimination, it appeared to be a promising vehicle for the emancipation and empowerment of persons with disabilities. As of July 2015 there are 157 ratifica-tions, of which the great majority are developing countries. In this paper we exam-ine the CRPD within the context, and as part of, a larger and very significant global social-ideological orientation: the international movement for inclusive schooling. As inclusion is increasingly embraced around the world, it is important for educa-tors to understand how this major human rights convention is linked to and inter sects with the quest for inclusive schooling. Our analysis reveals that there are in-herent tensions and dialectical contradictions between the broad ideals of the inclusion movement and the more focused priorities of the CRPD. As a result, de-spite grand hopes and elaborate plans, progress of the CRPD has been disappoint-ing. The CRPD is not playing a significant role in inclusive policy making at any level. Very few nations have translated the principles into effective action. Indeed, few countries at present even have the capacity needed to ensure full implementa-tion of the treaty, and the international pattern documents a disconnect between emancipatory rhetoric and measurable outcomes. To date, it appears that the CRPD has done little to materially and educationally improve the prospects of those with disabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".