Moral status, epistemic agency, and the education of students labeled with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students labeled with intellectual disability, including those with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities, are subject to numerous practices that diminish or demonstrate disregard for their status as knowers. The widespread acceptance of epistemically undermining educational practices aligns with a prominent philosophical conception of equal moral status, which we reject. The alternative conception of moral status that we outline brings into view a developmental dimension that is often ignored in moral status debates. We argue that epistemically undermining educational practices are morally and epistemically demeaning toward intellectually disabled students when and because they betray a basic moral obligation to protect students’ formative opportunities within educational contexts. We show that epistemically undermining practices constitute a serious wrong to students in their capacity as knowers. Evaluating the moral adequacy of educational practices requires a concern for the diverse, pluralistic conditions under which students’ epistemic capacities might be enabled to grow and develop.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".