Simulating Others’ Realities: Insiders Reflect on Disability Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this interpretative phenomenological analysis study was to explore the meaning persons who experience disability ascribed to disability simulations as a pedagogical tool. Reflective writing, one-on-one interviews, and field notes were used to gather information on disability simulation use in a required postsecondary kinesiology course. Seven people who use wheelchairs full time (3 men, 4 women), ranging in age from 28 to 44 yr (average age = 36) shared their perspectives. The thematic analysis revealed 3 themes. The theme "Disability Mentors Required" revealed the participants' collective questioning of their absence from the design and implementation of disability simulations. "Life Is Not a Simulation" illustrated the juxtaposition of disability reality and disability simulations. "Why Are They Laughing?" contrasted the use of fun as a strategy to engage students against the risk of distracting them from deeper reflection. Through the lens of ableism, the importance of disability representation in the development and implementation of disability simulations was affirmed as a means to deepen pedagogical reflexiveness of their intended use.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".