MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394891854 · doi:10.1080/14643154.2024.2342056

Possible beings: Deaf children and linguistic justice

2024· article· en· W4394891854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristin Snoddon

Bibliographic record

VenueDeafness & Education International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign languageEconomic JusticeAmerican Sign LanguageSign (mathematics)PedagogyPsychologyLinguisticsDeaf educationSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the case of Carter Churchill v. Newfoundland and Labrador English School District and analyses legal documents as they illuminate current understanding of linguistic justice and relational ethics. This case is a test case for the standard of education provided to deaf learners in Canada who benefit from sign language. Linguistic justice considers language issues as they are relevant to social justice. The paper first discusses the linguistic justice framework in relation to deaf children’s right to sign language, then analyses legal documents from the case for what they reveal about patterns of inaction on the part of senior educational administrators and deficiency views of American Sign Language (ASL) that are pervasive in Canadian early intervention and education systems for deaf children. While the 2023 Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Board of Inquiry decision found the school district failed to provide reasonable accommodation and discriminated against Carter during the first four years of his education, this decision and related events stop short of ordering linguistic justice for deaf children in the form of sign language policy and planning that fulfils a society’s ethical responsibilities to deaf people.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeafness & Education InternationalSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207