“Can Disability Be Positive?” Reflecting on Children’s Rights and Disability through Shaking the Movers: A Youth-led Consultative, Collaborative, Participatory Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes a reflective approach from the perspective of the National Coordinator of a youth-led consultative and collaborative model known as Shaking the Movers, developed by The Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. It reflects on the model which was used to run a workshop that focused on children’s rights and disability to explore the guiding question: “Can Disability be Positive?” It reveals how the event unfolded, key messages from working with children and youth with disabilities, how the model worked or instances when it did not and key components that are helpful for other’s who may be interested in organizing a youth-led consultative and collaborative workshop with young people with disabilities. Ultimately, the paper explores the concepts of marginality and relationality and the ways these notions highlight how adult-centric views creep into the best laid efforts of adults who are aware of the strength of youth-led workshops.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".