Social Justice and Converging Theories: Library Service for Those with Intellectual and Developmental Disability (IDD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While libraries have sought to advance diversity in their services, they have yet to engage a specific population which tests the limits of the profession’s capabilities and the scope of its mission. Those with Intellectual and Developmental Disability (IDD) combine the categories of learning and physical disabilities and demand the highest level of support. But the impediments to reading imposed by their cognitive condition make it difficult for them to access the library’s materials. Beset by funding shortages and systemic change, what are libraries to do? This study examines how convergent trends in educational theory and practice as well as grass-roots initiatives have created new possibilities for library services to this population. The study reviews these trends as well as a case study to suggest that libraries have much of what they need in their traditional programming and training when combined with a deeper understanding of the dynamics of social justice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".