FROM TRAGEDY TO ‘CRIP’ TO HUMAN: THE NEED FOR MULTIPLE UNDERSTANDINGS OF DISABILITY IN PSYCHOTHERAPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with disabilities have been largely ignored from research and training in the field of Psychology. Historically, when disability is discussed in psychotherapy theory, it is often pathologized as a condition that contributes to a maladaptive personality and poor societal functioning. The following research paper proposes a new understanding of disability in the field of Psychology through the introduction of a disability-affirmative model. Through understanding disability expansively as an extension of the human condition, a distinct minority group, a rich and valued culture, and as a bodily experience, Psychology can best contribute to the diverse lives of those with disabilities. Furthermore, by adopting a more flexible and positive view of disability, Psychology will be more open to the innovative and valued ideas presented both from professionals with disabilities and individuals within Critical Disability Studies in research, practice, and training.
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 | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.156 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| 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".