Representations of disability and normality in rehabilitation technology promotional materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the ways in which promotional materials for two rehabilitation technologies reproduce commonly held perspectives about disability and rehabilitation. METHOD: Our analysis was informed by critical disability studies using techniques from discourse analysis to examine texts (words and images) and their relation to social practices and power. Using this approach, promotional materials for (a) hearing aid and (b) robotic gait training technologies were interrogated using three central questions: (1) Who are represented? (2) What is promised? and (3) Who has authority? RESULTS: Messages of normalization pervaded representations of disabled children and their families, and the promises offered by the technologies. The latter included efficiency and effectiveness, progress and improvement, success and inclusion, and opportunities for a normal life. CONCLUSIONS: Normalization discourses construct childhood disability through texts and images. These discourses reinforce pervasive negative messages about disability that are taken up by children and families and have ethical implications for clinical practice. Rehabilitation has largely focused on "fixing" the individual, whereas broadening the clinical gaze to the social dimensions of disablement may lead to a more sensitive and informed approach within family-clinician discussions surrounding these advanced technologies and the use they make of promotional materials. Implications for Rehabilitation Awareness of the potential effects of implicit and explicit messages about disability in promotional materials may lead to a more sensitive and informed approach within family-clinician discussions surrounding rehabilitation technologies. In practice, it is important for rehabilitation professionals to remember that parents' and children's values and beliefs are shaped over time, and parents' and professionals' perspectives on disability strongly influence how disabled children internalize what disability means to them.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".