Backwards and Wearing Heels: Conversations about Dyslexia, Ceramics and Success
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between May and September 2000, I conducted a series of qualitative interviews with seven highly successful dyslexic ceramic artists about how their dyslexia and their passion for the ceramic arts affected their learning and their lives.The artists who spoke with me are unquestionably accomplished, by any measurement, in an intensely competitive and difficult field.I have approached this research with the attitude that dyslexics are the mining canaries of the school system.Educational circumstances that favor dyslexics are also healthier for non-dyslexics.Stronger students would also benefit from a healthier educational atmosphere.What we learn about teaching dyslexics is relevant to teaching non-dyslexics.That they are successful learners despite, or even because of, their learning differences presents intriguing perspectives from which to view the care and guidance of any young person struggling to learn, to communicate and to contribute.Dyslexia is a language learning disorder in which the affected individual has difficulty learning to read.The causes of dyslexia are unknown; however it is likely a complex interaction of an intrinsic neurological condition involving an inefficiency in the brain's processing of the phonological elements of a language, in conjunction with weaknesses in the teaching of reading skills and the culture in which the individual lives (Frith, 1997;Hatcher, et al, 1994).It is entirely unrelated to intelligence (Butkowsky & Willows, 1980;Edwards, 1994;Frith, 1997).Untreated or ineffectively treated dyslexia has been linked to juvenile crime, substance abuse and a wide variety of other selfdestructive behaviors (Butkowsky & Willows,
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it