Non-disabled Space Invaders! A Study Critically Exploring the Scholarly Reporting of Research Attributes for Persons With and Without Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social justice requires that the “nothing about us without us” disability inclusion mantra not be rejected or watered down in knowledge production activities. Appreciating the need for a greater representation of disability in these activities, this investigative study aims to (a) determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the median research attribute reporting scores between articles whose content refers to the term “researchers with lived experience” and articles whose content refers to “non-disabled researchers,” and (b) to critically discuss how the scholarly literature reports on the attributes of researchers with and without disability. Enabling this exploration, this study has applied the Mann-Whitney U test and thematic analysis to a purposive sample of 20 articles that were retrieved from a Scopus database search. Findings reveal that the median score of reported research attributes was statistically significantly higher in the group of articles whose content referred to the term researchers with lived experience than in the articles that referred to non-disabled researchers. Results also highlight attributes of empathy, ability, rigor and activism that are reportedly shared across the two groups of articles. Crucially, attention is given to a theme reported as unique to the researchers with disability group. This is the attribute of having firsthand knowledge of disability (i.e., lived experience). The study concludes by recognising that lived experience, when incorporated throughout the research process, can help to redress deficiencies that might otherwise be present.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".