Hollywood Takes on Intellectual/Developmental Disability: Cinematic Representations of Occupational Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with intellectual/developmental disability (IDD), and their occupational participation, are vastly under-represented in Hollywood films. Because films often provide individuals' only experience of people with IDD, cinematic representations can influence audience perceptions. Thus, films can help inform public perceptions about desired and appropriate occupational participation for people with IDD, potentially impacting their access to meaningful occupational participation and achievement of occupational potential. Accordingly, this research examined occupational portrayals of adults with IDD in contemporary Hollywood films. Occupational portrayals, as defined here, refer to representations of the dynamic process of the person participating in occupation(s) in a context. Grounded theory methods guided coding and analysis of qualitative data collected from eight contemporary films using an occupation-focused tool. Two major, striking themes emerging from the qualitative analysis--infantilization and simplification of participation in complex occupations (with three associated sub-themes)--are discussed. Implications of the findings and future research directions are considered.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".