An Undetectable Work-Ethic: Design Activism’s Detour into Subcultures of Queer Disability and Innovation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LGBTQ communities globally continue to gain momentum in social acceptance yet continue to be challenged in their pursuits of equality. This research inquiry seeks to acknowledge and illuminate Design-Activism's relevancy among LGBTQ communities with a focus on Activism, Entrepreneurship and (Invisibility) Disability Culture. This study uses a mixed methods approach to understand Design-Activism's capacity towards accessing new and alternative modes of social inclusion. Drawing from theoretical and design-driven generated forms of knowledge, this study aligns pre-assumed disconnected concepts and highlights the unnoticed interconnectedness. Discovered are the boundaries and forces needed to expand Design's potential role towards championing Design beyond traditional commercial applications, with a concentrated effort towards service gaps and accessibility. LGBTQ communities, although historically antagonized, demonstrate genuine insights and contributions towards the practice of Design Activism, thus revealing much more about people and the importance of Design.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".