Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter is concerned with a central question: how far can the ideas embedded in contemporary views of rights and justice take us in the development of a good life for people with intellectual disabilities? Rights Is there another word for rights. A lot of people (with intellectual disabilities) don't know what rights mean. (Roberts, 2009) Like many other concepts addressed in this book, ‘rights’ is a generally used term, the meaning of which is seldom unpacked, and, as Bill Roberts says, for people with intellectual disabilities it can be a difficult one to explain in concrete terms. To describe the history and development of rights would take a book in itself, however we believe it is important to provide a brief account of how ideas about rights have evolved and their implications for people with intellectual disabilities. It is also important to position them in relation to the philosophical accounts in Part One of what constitutes a good life because: If we do not know what human rights are exactly, how they have developed and why they might be important, making a decision about how best they might be protected will be correspondingly more difficult. (Zifcak and King, 2009, p 11) What are rights? The conception of rights is deeply embedded in Western philosophical views about the nature of being human and of ‘a life well lived’ or, in our terms, ‘a good life’. As we will see in this brief account, they resonate strongly with the discussion of a good life in earlier parts of this book. Rights are not a new concept, although there has been a strong focus on them since the middle of the 20th century. They have their basis in theological writing and philosophy in the late middle ages. Thomas Aquinas, for example, asserted that there were certain natural laws or principles of justice. He defined justice as ‘what is owed to everyone in common’ as opposed to obligations to particular individuals. Aquinas saw rights as entitlements that encompassed life, reason, determination of one's life course, peaceful living and the search for God. Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant and Mill removed rights from their theological context and reconstituted them as moral principles derived from reason alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".