The Reworking of Spatial Attribution: People with Intellectual Disabilites and the Micropolitics of Dissensus
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
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes This research project was conducted by Ann Fudge Schormans toward completion of her PhD in Social Work. Adrienne Chambon was Ann's thesis supervisor. For more details about the project's structure, please see Fudge Schormans (2011 Fudge Schormans , A. ( 2011 ). The Right or Responsibility of Inspection: Photography, Social Work, and People with Intellectual Disabilities. PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. [Google Scholar]) and Fudge Schormans and Chambon (in press Fudge Schormans , A. and Chambon , A. ( in press ). “Please Don't Let Me Be Like This!”: Un-wounding Photographic Representations by People with Intellectual Disabilities . In S. Brophy & J. Hladki (Eds.), Embodied Politics in Visual Autobiography . Toronto : University of Toronto Press . [Google Scholar]). In conversations with the photographer, the man's dress and positioning on the mattress are explained as an effort to keep him cool and comfortable on a hot day. This information is not provided to the viewer of the image through the caption or the accompanying text, nor was it available prior to the group members’ work with the images. My sharing of this information with them after the work was completed did not change their interpretation of the image. The question of the group's concern with notions of “normality” will be taken up in another publication. The responses of audiences to exhibits of these two sets of images will be taken up in another publication.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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