MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769568526 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v6i4.386

The Theory of Intersectionality: A New Lens for Understanding the Barriers Faced by Autistic Women

2017· article· en· W2769568526 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityOperationalizationDisability studiesInclusion (mineral)AbleismPerspective (graphical)Medical model of disabilitySociologyPsychologyGender studiesEpistemologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While disabilities studies scholars have already taken a great step forward in integrating the theory of intersectionality, progress is still required. Many theoretical and empirical disability studies papers operationalize disability in a vague and all-inclusive manner. Although it is important to research disability in a global way, it is just as important to regard the more specific experiences of disability. The study of specific disabilities and the barriers that are faced by those who have them is critical since living with one type of disability can lead to very different experiences as compared with having a different disability (Hirschmann, 2012). In addition to adding Autism to the discussion of intersectionality within disability studies, it is critical to include a disability studies perspective to other fields of research in order to successfully incorporate an intersectional framework.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it