Parallels and problems of normalization in rehabilitation and universal design: enabling connectivities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Universal design (UD) is oriented to creating products, buildings, outdoor spaces and services for use by all people to the fullest extent possible according to principles of enabling equal citizenship. Nevertheless its theoretical basis has been under-explored, a critique that has also been leveled at rehabilitation. This commentary explores parallels between UD and dominant rehabilitation discourses that risk privileging or discrediting particular ways of being and doing. METHODS: Commentary. RESULTS: Drawing from examples that explore the intersection of bodies, places and technologies with disabled people, I examined how practices of normalization risk reproducing the universalized body and legitimated forms of mobility, and in so doing perpetuates the "othering" of difference. To address these limitations, I explored the postmodern notion of multiple creative "assemblages" that are continually made and broken over time and space. Assemblages resist normalization tendencies by acknowledging and fostering multiple productive dependencies between human and non-human elements that include diverse bodies, not just those labeled disabled. CONCLUSION: In exploring the potential of enhancing creative assemblages and multiple dependencies, space opens up in UD and rehabilitation for acknowledging, developing, and promoting a multiplicity of bodily forms and modes of mobility. Implications for Rehabilitation Universal design and rehabilitation both risk perpetuating particular ideas about what disabled people should be, do, and value, that privilege a limited range of particular bodily forms. The notion of "assemblages" provides a conceptual tool for rethinking negative views of dependence and taken for granted independence goals. In exploring the potential of enhancing various dependencies, space opens up for reconsidering disability, mobility and multiple ways of "doing-in-the-world".
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 | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.193 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".