A participatory filmmaking process with children with disabilities in rural India: Working towards inclusive research
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
Children with disabilities often experience exclusion within their communities, and this exclusion can extend into research processes. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, emphasizes that children of all abilities need to be involved as decision makers in matters affecting them. This article provides an in-depth description of the process of a participatory action research project carried out with children with disabilities from a rural village in India. It argues for the utility of participatory filmmaking as a research methodology that supports inclusion of children with disabilities as co-researchers in research and action processes. The different phases of the research project, namely the preparatory, participatory research, and the action phase, are made transparent along with the details of activities carried out within each phase. The technical and pragmatic challenges faced within this participatory filmmaking process are pointed out, and strategies used to negotiate challenges and adapt this methodology to fit context-specific needs are shared. This account of the complex, yet flexible and adaptable, participatory filmmaking process is presented as means to support critical and informed uptakes of participatory filmmaking for inclusive research practices with children 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.
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 | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it