From Medication to Meditation: A Critical Disability Studies Analysis of Mindfulness-Based Practices for Children With Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning disabilities (LD) are a widespread phenomenon, affecting many individuals across the globe. Throughout the past 70 years, the field of LDs has aimed to support children, youth, as well as their families, to generate definitions, understand neurological contributions and create meaningful policies and practices. However, despite decades of research, an emphasis on early identification and prevention, and significant policy documents, children and youth with LDs continue to face equally as important difficulties related to one’s social and emotional well-being. Critical disability studies (CDS) identifies how political, educational, and social contexts serve as sites for (in)justice (Shildrick, 2007). A CDS framework aims to resist the emphasis of individual impairment and deficiency while incorporating the interests and voices of the individuals with disabilities themselves. Few studies have analyzed the impact of mindfulness on how children with LDs cope with stress, ‘failure’, and understand their bodies. As a result, this paper will ask: how can mindfulness-based practices be used as a tool to improve the overall well-being of children and youth with a LD? With support from CDS and the utilization of mindfulness-based practices, children and youth with LDs can become connected to the body and mind. This study will enable future research on the importance of self-advocacy, coping, confidence, attention, and emotional regulation for children with LDs. It is through these liberating frameworks that children with LDs can become emancipated from political, historic, social, and cultural constraints.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".