Grey spaces: the wheeled fields of residential care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many individuals living in residential care use a wheelchair as their primary means of mobility. Although studies have documented challenges encountered by residents in these facilities, few have addressed the role that wheelchairs, as potential enablers and barriers to mobility and participation, play in their lives. To better understand residents' experiences, an ethnographic study was conducted drawing on Bourdieu's theoretical constructs of capital, field, and habitus. Participant observations were conducted at two facilities, and residents, family members and staff took part in in-depth individual interviews. Our analysis revealed three themes. Ready to roll detailed how residents used wheelchairs as a source of comfort and means for expanding their social space, while staff could use them as a means to move and control some residents. Squeaky wheels described how residents solicited assistance from staff and family amid having to wait to perform activities of daily living. In, out and about revealed diversity in the places residents went, spaces they shared and the social activities in which they engaged inside and outside their residential facilities. The study findings emphasise how wheelchairs constitute capital that governs many fields of practice for residents and staff and suggest how practice and policy might be adjusted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".