Moving Materiality: People, Tools, and this Thing Called Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This body is wheelchair-bound. Not in the sense of the ableist idiom, but literally: bound to a nine-pound titanium frame through Velcro and ratchet straps ripped from snowboards. This wheelchair is body-bound, bound to the flick of a hip against strapping, pulling through plastic and metal and rubber and gravity and wood, into a tilt onto one wheel. This metal, this flesh, this materiality is bound, too, by rhythm and soundscape: chairs crashing; prodding questions; polite onlookers, silent; the percussive thud of wheels on uneven terrain. It is bound to the gaze of audience and reader and performer and lover. It is bound with the discourses of (dis)ability, in(ter)dependence, materiality and boundedness. This essay too, is wheelchair-body-bound. It is bound to explorations of previous works on the practices, discourses, and materialities of the wheelchair. It is bound by the authors’ personal narratives of living, playing, moving and thinking with, in and through various wheelchairs and other technologies of (im)mobility. It is bound through critical artistic engagement: bound with thinking and, literally, dancing through the ways that flesh-chair-discourse-power bind in the form of a subject, or an articulation, or an assemblage. Finally, this essay is bound through an unabashed and unbounded passion for the exploration of the local, specific, strategic, accidental, and creative ways that one may remake or even re-imagine the bonding of their tools, communities, ideas, bodies, and mobilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".