THE NORMALITY OF DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY: BODIES, SPACES AND DISABILITY GEOGRAPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper reflects upon treatments of the body in both disability studies and disability geography, taking seriously the impaired body in its immediate materiality: in its flesh‐and‐boneness, in how it deals with everyday practices in everyday places, as this embodiment is ‘voiced’ by disabled people themselves. The paper discusses Hansen's in‐depth research with a sample of disabled women living in Scotland and Canada, teasing out their experiences of coping with impaired bodies in non‐disabled spaces. Particular attention is given to their own bodily practices, complete with ‘timings and spacings’ that may depart from what is supposedly normal for non‐disabled people. It is also shown how these women resist ableist accommodations that entail both modifying external spaces and ‘correcting’ bodily differences. The paper concludes by identifying a key but neglected step within the ‘politics’ of better accommodating disabled people: namely, shifting the emphasis from (aiding disabled people in) doing things ‘normally’ to (underlining for all of ‘us’) simply the normality of doing things differently.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".