Laissez-faire Ableism in the Academy: Contouring the Map with Graduate Student Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graduate studies present unique contexts for accommodation due to the factors such as student age, professional background, and employment status within the university. Scholars recognize the need to reframe the dominant narrative which positions dis/ability in relation to ability, or ableism. The present study uses graduate student experiences with self-advocacy to examine Laissez-faire ableism at interactional and personal levels of higher education. We argue that dis/ability accommodation should be viewed as an iterative and interactive process between the student, faculty, and other institutional actors such as Dis/ability Services. The authors are doctoral students in education with hidden dis/abilities who are racialized differently. This article values dis/abled student voice as essential to the equity and inclusion for dis/abled students (Pearson, 2015). We use Black Feminism in Qualitative Inquiry (BFQI) and duoethnography to empirically investigate our ongoing attempt to transform our institutional climate. Our purpose is to highlight the centrality of humanity in the pursuit of dis/ability justice by putting our lived experiences becoming coconspirators in conversation with each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".