THE DISAVOWAL OF THE BODY AS A SOURCE OF INQUIRY IN CRITICAL DISABILITY STUDIES: THE RETURN OF IMPAIRMENT?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a critical exploration of how the human body has been excluded or disavowed as a source of inquiry within the nascent field of Critical Disability Studies and from the social model of disability. The locus of scholarly interest has remained singularly on disability to the neglect of examining impairment. This reluctance to address issues of impairment highlights a tension within the disability rights movement on a gender axis. Men with disabilities are more concerned with focusing on “disabling” external barriers, such as unequal access and negative attitudes, at the expense of personal (and bodily) experiences of impairment, which is a concern for women with disabilities. This paper is also an attempt at giving voice to what Crow (1996) has referred to as a “return to impairment” as a means of renewing the social model of disability. Keywords: impairment, embodiment, pain, chronic illness, corporeal disability discourse, social model of disability, “healthy disabled”
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 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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it