Interrogating inclusion with youths who use augmentative and alternative communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even as the goal of social inclusion underpins health and social services for disabled youths, those with communication impairments continue to lead narrowly circumscribed lives. In this Canadian study, we combined visual methods and interviews with 13 Canadian youths who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to understand how they make 'practical sense' of discourses of inclusion. Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of practice, we suggest: (i) participants' narratives reveal habitus - a socially constituted set of dispositions - that predispose them to accommodate the devalued social positions and constricted conditions of existence imposed on them; (ii) some forms of 'inclusion' perpetuate symbolic violence, as youths who use AAC internalise, as seemingly 'natural', dominant social norms and values that privilege 'normal' bodies; and (iii) although their practices primarily reproduced the status quo, youths in the study also worked at the margins to create locally produced forms of inclusion that attempted to transform the 'rules of the game'. We argue these results suggest a need for systemic shifts past reified notions of inclusion towards fostering social spaces where alternative ways of being in the world are positively valued.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".