‘What`s in a name?’ Assessing dynamic tension between Critical Theory ambitions and Neoliberal pragmatism in Higher Education Disability service provision
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
The study examines the experience of a Higher Education Disability service provider as it battles the conflicting imperatives symbolised by a proposed name change for the service. One of the key dilemmas involved in the reflection of the practitioners involved is whether or not to include the word ‘Disability’ in the designation and the branding of the unit. Beyond the reflection of the name change itself, the data collected by the unit reveals the wider coexistence, within practices of service provision, of two distinct sets of values and imperatives. The paper analyses the thought process which took place on this campus for several months in 2013 and argues that what transpires in the analysis of the qualitative data surrounding this episode, is the growing dynamic interaction between a Critical Theory heritage and increasingly present Neoliberal imperatives. The outcomes section examines how this tension might be addressed in the future by Disability service providers but also campuses at large.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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