Bibliographic record
Abstract
Have you ever considered that people with intellectual disabilities have a right to become parents? Have you thought about the ways in which healthcare services tend to “treat” autistic people? How do you feel about selective termination of pregnancy based on a gene linked to a condition conferring intellectual impairment? To what extent might your feelings about these – and other questions regarding neurodiverse populations – be based on widespread ableism that pervades our organizations, systems and society? In this book, contributors from a multitude of backgrounds engage with ethically complex questions relevant to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and/or autistic people, as well as those caring for and working with neurodiverse populations. The book includes the following sections: Moral Status; Capacity and Consent; Inclusion and Empowerment (Society, Systems and Ethics); Inclusion and Empowerment (Practical Approaches); Sexuality, Intimacy, Romance, and Parenting; Health Care; and Ethical Responses to ‘Behaviours’. Our overall hope is that with more awareness of the issues and challenges, and some exposure to a positive framing of these, the volume may contribute to a better understanding of, and broader advocacy for, the rights and ethical treatment of autistic people and individuals with IDD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".