Re‐Imagining Inclusion Through the Lens of Disabled Childhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to contribute new insights to critical disability and disabled children’s childhood studies that center on the valuing of disabled children’s lives—a guiding purpose in the disability justice movement. We use published findings from the Inclusive Early Childhood Service System project, a longitudinal, institutional ethnography of the ways that families and children are organized around categories of disability, which show social inclusions and exclusions before and during the pandemic. These findings illuminate: (a) institutional flexibility for the purpose of social inclusion and isola‐ tion during the pandemic as a result of institutional organization; (b) the impact of institutional decisions around closures, remote programs, and support on families’ choices and self‐determination; and (3) the ways safety is differently applied and rationalized for disabled children allowing institutions to exclude disabled children and families. We use critical dis‐ ability studies and disabled children’s childhood studies to interpret these findings and position the valuing of disabled children’s lives with a call for disability justice actions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".