Les personnes handicapées ont-elles droit au loisir? L’exemple du cirque contemporain français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disabled people are currently considered as fully fledged citizens. Their social participation – rather than rehabilitation – should be a priority of social and legislative progress. While a large number of disabled people cannot participate in primary obligations constituted by work and education, the leisure field, though not necessarily cost-effective or performative, could be a privileged area of social participation for these people. We are interested in the world of the contemporary circus, which maintains special links with disability and madness, and which welcomes many disabled people in circus schools. The study of multiple sources, and the in-depth case study of an association, enable us to highlight the ways in which the practice of being in a circus is diverted from its artistic purpose and invested in educational and therapeutic goals. This leads disabled people to pursue their perpetual re-education and rehabilitation in the contemporary circus. To reflect on these contradictions, and examine disabled people’s right to leisure, it seems important to support the development of a leisure sociology that is interested in all people, regardless of their capacities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".