Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les concepts « ableism » et « disablism » sont bien connus dans les disability studies et sont de plus en plus utilisés par activistes et artistes. Pourtant, ils commencent à peine à émerger dans la littérature francophone. Ces concepts importants ont jusqu’à présent été traduits de diverses façons (capacitisme, handicapisme, incapacitisme et validisme) sans qu’aucune traduction ne parvienne à s’imposer. Cet article fait état du retard des études francophones québécoise et canadienne sur le handicap et présente les récents développements relatifs à l’utilisation des concepts de capacitisime et de handicapisme. En tant qu’activiste, chercheure et femme handicapée francophone québécoise, je soutiens qu’il est nécessaire de développer un « isme » en français pour mieux comprendre l’oppression vécue par les personnes handicapées. The concepts, “ableism” and “disablism” are well known within the field of disability studies, and are being used more often by both activists and artists. However, they are only just starting to emerge in Francophone academic literature with terms such as capactitisme, handicapisme, incapacitisme and valisme. Although beginning to make waves, these terms have yet to be embraced. This article explores the major gap that exists in Francophone disability studies between Québec and Anglophone Canada, and presents recent developments of the usage of the concepts capacitisme and handicapisme. I will argue, from the stance as an activist, academic, Francophone from Quebec, disabled woman, the need to develop an “ism” in the French language to highlight and give a deeper understanding to the lived oppression of disabled people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".