The Ontario Right to Read Inquiry and the Social Model of Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Christine Caughill published an article in the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, critiquing the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) Report of the Right to Read Inquiry (herein referred to as “the report”), titled “Managing the problem of dyslexia: a review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Report of the Right to Read Inquiry” (Caughill, 2024). As a scholar of health equity, literacy advocate, and mother of children with dyslexia, I read this article with interest and concern. Caughill (2024) argues that the report utilizes a medical model of disability, was conducted in response to a “science of reading movement” (Caughill 2024, p. 38), frames children with reading disabilities as “a problem to be solved” (Caughill, 2024, p. 40), and is ultimately, “dehumanizing” of individuals with reading disabilities (Caughill, 2024, p. 38). However, Caughill misinterpreted and decontextualized aspects of the report, and in the process failed to recognize that the report is largely based on a social model of disability. In doing so, Caughill reinforces circulating narratives of dyslexia and disability that are harmful.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".