Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les Tetes a Papineau (1981) by Jacques Godbout is an ironic allegorical rejoinder to the failure the 1980 referendum that would have afforded sovereignty-association status to Quebec. Inspired by the adage, cela ne prend pas la tete a Papineau, or, doesn't take a genius, this rambunctious narrative chronicles the lives and times Francois and Charles, twins conjoined at the neck who sustain each other physiologically-each coordinating with the other even to breathe-but speak primarily French and English, respectively. They grow up in relative harmony despite markedly different personalities and pursuits, their monstrosity affording economic and functional advantages that propel them through the stock experiences childhood lived with disability in North America-regular press coverage, a biography, product sponsorships, and even mythical status in faraway lands. They are able to handle a busy promotional schedule thanks to creative coordination, as well: sleeping in shifts allows them to earn a college degree in half the time, coordinated multitasking results in dazzling public appearances, and bilingualism makes them doubly efficient at networking a Canadian crowd. The text opens with the arrival Dr. Northridge, a neurosurgeon with plans to cure them by means an intricate surgery merging halves their brain within a single cranium. Despite careful planning that includes tracking by means computer mediation how their brains interface, Dr. Northridge is surprised to find, mid-surgery, that a single cranium cannot accommodate the volume brain that must be preserved: Charles awakens to find that he is irremediably monolingual and thus unable to finish-or even understand-the personal account the cure that he and Francois had undertaken together.This bi-graphie (sic), a cautionary tale about presumptions progress, turns out to be very much of two minds, marked by deep ambivalence about medical intervention, voice and language, autonomy and interdependence, belonging and loss. It seems a fitting entree en matiere as commentary both on the primacy English in knowledge-making and the analogous superiority that is afforded continental French (of France) vis-a-vis its Francophone cousins in the rest the world. We cannot help but note in passing how well the two-headed adventures Francois and Charles characterize this project, as we draft together via computer-mediated communication, time and again bumping up against ingrained assumptions long-held hierarchies within the Francophone world and the study disability. These hierarchies call into question the very notion any inclusive field study, so ill-fitted does the western lens disability studies sometimes seem to various regions the Francophone world. The brain is much bigger than the cranium, as it were, and discursive operations that continually seem to delimit disability studies as we understand and practice it prevent knowledge, identification, and mutual reconnaissance (selon Paul Ricoeur).Sustaining world languages and cultures has everything to do with the future disability and its study. The vast majority people with disabilities today live in the majority world, their impairments frequently the result our political folly (see Davidson). On the other hand, the languages they speak, although spoken by millions, enter our world knowledge-making scarcely at all. Cures for disability continue to seem desirable to many in the same way learning English or French maintains its cachet in much the world. Colonialism has for hundreds years embodied a certain kind progress enacted through brutal tactics assimilation. Martinican psychoanalyst and revolutionary, Frantz Fanon, is among the earliest writers to have critiqued these assumptions and their relationship to mental health. Writing about individual and collective experience, he formulates the deleterious impact normative expectations dominant culture and language as an impulse to mimic them. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".