Towards a Complicated Conversation Among Disability Studies, Complexity Thinking and Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of disability, an embodied form of extreme vulnerability that is socially enacted, introduces into complex systems such as education or society, a perturbation, embodied agents that are biologically and socially constructed as being 'unfit', 'mal-adapted' or who do not adapt easily to the specific ecologies in which they must operate and thus gestures toward a current limit(ation) (and new beginning) of the complexivist framework for theorizing the pragmatic question of "How we should act?" What is required of us in our interaction with dis/abled agents who are circumscribed by not being fully "capable of adapting... to the sorts of new and diverse circumstances that an active agent is likely to encounter in a dynamic world" (Davis & Sumara, 2006, p.14)? In this paper I present a "complicated conversation" among complexity thinking, curriculum theorizing, and disability studies in education and argue that dis-embodiments prompt a certain type of ethical mindfulness
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 | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| 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".