Narratives of Down Syndrome: Representations of Intellectual Disability in Children's Storybooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates how we can engage with intellectual disabilities in a deeper, more relational way through the cultural artefacts of children’s storybooks. Using primarily a disability studies framework and informed by childhood studies, I map and reflect on how dominant relationships with intellectual disability, such as medicine and education, define Down syndrome and intellectual disabilities as developmental problems. My application of disability studies seeks to disrupt notions of disability as being only a medical or educational problem. This project offers a way of understanding Down syndrome in a sociocultural context (Karmiris, 2017; Titchkosky Michalko, 2009; Titchkosky, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2011; Mitchell Snyder, 2015; Michalko, 2002; Weiss, 2015). I comment on how adult-centred representations of Down syndrome re-produce adult-centred expectations of all children. Furthermore, disability studies offers a nuanced account of how ableism might originate in the very institutions that claim to address the “problem” of Down syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".