MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521716363 · doi:10.18061/dsq.v21i2.280

Disability is Not so Beautiful: A Semiotic Analysis of Advertisements for Rehabilitation Goods

2001· article· en· W1521716363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorraine Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability Studies Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Cultural studiesSociologyMass mediaPsychologyAdvertisingLinguisticsPolitical scienceHistoryAnthropologyBusinessPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study posits a semiotic investigation of the representation of the "disabled body" in advertisements for rehabilitation goods utilizing two major Canadian disability-oriented magazines. The historical context is the late 20th century Canadian/North American advertising and society. The semiology of cultural production studies provide the tools for methodological analysis. It is a media investigation that explored how advertisements as a cultural text reproduced and reinforced cultural notions of the "disabled body." It allowed this researcher to critically consider how mass culture subordinates perceived deviant groups to non-deviant groups (Rubin, Rubin and Piele, 1996).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability Studies QuarterlySame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207