Right to Play for Children with Disabilities
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
The following research study seeks to examine problematic discourses around children with disabilities and their right to play, through a critical disability studies and children's rights lens. This paper will argue that inadequate understandings of children's varied definitions of play can lead to exclusion in non-institutional and institutional settings. Through the use of photovoice and interview analysis, we sought to take a holistic approach to understanding the varied ways children with disabilities, and educational assistants, answered questions surrounding "what is play?" Our findings align with the notion that the right of children with disabilities to play is complex and interdisciplinary. Bridging access to cultivate appropriate inclusion through awareness, applicable school programming, and a redefined definition and discourse around play, is crucial for children to authentically participate in their version of play, as defined by themselves. Valuing children's full right to play, as defined by the UNCRC, allows for a greater understanding of the social and political complexities of working with children instead of challenging their ability to advocate for themselves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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