MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532853196 · doi:10.29173/cjs1526

"To Pee or not to Pee"? Ordinary Talk about Extraordinary Exclusions in a University Environment

2008· article· en· W1532853196 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tanya Titchkosky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyNarrativeStatus quoGender studiesPhilosophyLinguisticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper demonstrates the sorts of questions that arise for sociologically informed disability studies scholarship in the midst of the interactional scenes of access struggles in an educational workplace environment. From my experiences in the third largest building of a large Canadian university, I have recollected ordinary talk that justifies the exclusion of disabled people and have pieced together narratives representing things-possible-to-say-today about accessibility struggles. By using an interpretive sociological approach, this paper explores how meanings of disability are generated through talk that justifies the exclusive shape and inaccessible structures of university life. I demonstrate that access is not a synonym for justice but is a beginning place for critical questioning where social relations between body and space can be thought anew. This paper adds to sociologically informed disability studies scholarship by analyzing how the ordinary everyday narration of disability acts as a social power reproducing the status-quo even as the material environment changes. Résumé. Ce texte démontre le genre de questions qui se présentent aux études sur la condition des personnes handicapées informées par la sociologieen interrogent les interactions qui émergent autour des luttes pour «l’accès» dans un milieu de travail scolaire/ académique. Au cours de mes expériences dans un des plus grands édifices dans une des plus grandes universités au Canada, j’ai amassé des paroles quotidiennes qui justifient l’exclusion des personnes handicapées. J’ai rassemblé des narratifs représentants ce-qui-est possible-de-dire aujourd’hui sur la lutte pour l’accessibilité. En utilisant une approche sociologique interprétativiste, ce texte illustre la façon dont les significations de l’incapacité sont générés par un discours qui rends légitime la construction exclusive ainsi que les structures inaccessible de la vie universitaire. Dans ce texte, je démontre que l’accès n’est pas synonyme de justice mais, par contre, est un point de départ pour la réflexion critique où les relations sociaux entre corps et espace peut être considéré à nouveau. Ce texte contribue aux études sur la condition des personnes handicapées informées par la sociologie en analysant la façon dont la narration ordinaire et quotidienne de l’incapacité peut continuer à, en même temps que l’environnement physique change, agir comme pouvoir social qui reproduit le statuquo.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.051
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207