Flying? Falling? – Conflicting Representations of Disability in Kevin Kerr’s Skydive (2007) and Brad Fraser’s Kill Me Now (2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canadian contemporary theatre is defined by a preponderance of previously marginalised discourses such as Feminist drama, First Nations drama, or Queer drama. The centre to periphery dispersal that has driven the Canadian cultural scene since the Massey Commission’s final report (1951) has favoured the rise of these traditions into public awareness. At the same time, the voice of disabled persons is hardly ever heard on Canadian stages. This paper takes a closer look at two recent texts, Kevin Kerr’s After a concise review of critical texts on disability studies, disability theatre, and disability aesthetics in order to establish an appropriate theoretical framework and terminology, the two plays are analysed for how they represent disability and disabled people. Kerr chooses to elide the different physicalities of his abled and disabled actors, establishing a transformative disability aesthetics. Fraser, in line with his usual modus operandi, opts for a more confrontational hypervisibility of his disabled characters and maximum emotional impact. Both authors are fully abled, however, so while their texts can be considered successful contributions to the representation of disabled persons on the contemporary Canadian stage, with diametrically opposed representational strategies, the question of an appropriation of voice remains pertinent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".