Choosing ‘stereotypes’: debating the efficacy of (British) disability‐criticism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers how, by paying attention to the divergent use of ‘stereotypes’ as a methodological tool, we concomitantly pay attention to the capacities of contemporary disability‐criticism. First, the search for negative stereotypes is described in terms of how it enables the repeated citation of common examples. However, as some areas of disability‐criticism have begun to acknowledge that ‘stereotypes’ are not exclusively a negative form, the second part of the paper uses the US cartoon series South Park to explore what sort of interpretations such a troublesome recognition allows. While critical discourse on disability is discussed as a whole, the ultimate aim is to draw some conclusions about the past, present and future of British disability‐criticism. The paper concludes by suggesting that recognising the contingency of where we are on how we choose to read representations of disability strengthens debates about how we want to go on.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it