MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120883853 · doi:10.25071/1918-6215.23387

ABLEISM KITSCH: THE AESTHETICS OF DISABILITY-RELATED ETHICS

2009· article· en· W2120883853 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Disability Discourses · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBioethics and Human Rights Issues
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKitschAbleismAestheticsDisfigurementSociologyArtEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the socio-political and ethical meanings of the various relationships between disablement, ableism, and ethics as they are generated through aesthetics, and does so by critiquing Tobin Siebers's article “Disability Aesthetics” (2006). Siebers claims that disability has a tacit and valuable presence in western art. Disability is esteemed when represented in art, yet devalued in normative social relations. The author thus critiques disability aesthetics by investigating the beautiful, the sublime, “madness”, “mental impairment”, ableism, kitsch, and cultural appropriation. From this the author argues that disability aesthetics is a spectacularized, once removed, representational deviance from the humdrum normalization of western culture, providing contact with the intense, unusual, and shocking. By providing the gestures of transformation within the safety net of image, art is a virtual escape from the hyper-real predictability of hegemony; it is a secure place to experience, respond, flirt, and abandon difference in the vortex of representation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it