Writing Institutionalization and Disability in the Canadian Culture Industry: (Re)producing (Absent) Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the lens of a non-survivor ally who is also a journalist, activist, sister, and educator, I offer a reflexive account of reconciling with failed media activism. By applying Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1972) concept of the culture industry to my own experience of pitching a story about the impending closure of Saskatchewan’s Valley View Centre to a Canadian publication, this article investigates the theoretical underpinnings of a Canadian culture industry confronted with the politics of institutionalization, survivorship, and intellectual disability. The culture industry operates on the inclusionist premise that the public needs to understand cultural locations of disability that bestow an artificial sense of bodily agency on the spectator, thus placing media producers in “expert” roles by culture industry standards. This article combines memory and critical theory in a writing-story that addresses the unresolvable task of un/covering disability’s presence and absence in a journalistic practice that cannot penetrate the walls of an institution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".