MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558958226 · doi:10.18061/dsq.v36i4.5124

Chronically Ill, Critically Crip?: Poetry, Poetics and Dissonant Disabilities

2016· article· en· W2558958226 on OpenAlexaff
Emilia Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability Studies Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsConsonance and dissonancePoetryNaturalnessDisability studiesMeaning (existential)SociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyAestheticsPhilosophyGender studiesLinguisticsPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this hybrid critical-creative paper, I explore disability poetry and crip poetics via my manuscript, Body Work. Poetry provides a site to explore crip experience because, as Petra Kuppers (2007) argues, "poems and their performance of meaning clasp something of crip culture's force" (p. 103). Here, the "instability of language" (Kuppers, p. 89) provides a way of understanding chronic illnesses as "dissonant disabilities" (Driedger & Owen, 2008). In placing chronic illness in a disability studies framework, and via crip theory, which critiques the common sense naturalness of ability and heterosexuality, I investigate how chronic illness demands ways of understanding that intelligently address mind and body unpredictability. In close, I will revisit Robert McRuer's notion of "critically crip" arguing that any claim to crip be enacted with intentional criticality.© 2016 Nielsen. All rights reserved. By author request, this article is excluded from Creative Commons licensing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.040
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability Studies QuarterlySame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207