Critical disability studies and quarter life crisis: Theorising life stage transitional crisis for disabled emerging adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper forms an intervention into existing literature on the life stage transitional crisis of emerging adulthood, commonly referred to as quarter life crisis. Whilst among existing analyses, aspects such as gender and ethnic dimensions are considered, a marked absence of attention to disability within quarter life crisis persists. Toward theorizing the position of disabled emerging adults undergoing transitional life crisis, a composite theoretical framework is envisioned and applied. This entails the application of a five-part typology of critical disability studies, within which a life course approach to disability is integrated. Given the novelty of the subject matter, aspirations for the analysis are modest. The aim is to destabilise and refigure present individualistic psychologised discourses and common popular culture understandings of quarter life crisis. To undertake this work, disability is taken up as a transformative site to rethink the meaning of life stage transitions in emerging adulthood. Points of interestAs young people move from adolescence to adulthood, they can experience a difficult period in their life known as ‘quarter life crisis.’Little is known or written about the experience of disability within quarter life crisis.Much of the way that quarter life crisis is understood presently is from an area of study known as psychology and from movies, articles, books and television shows for people in general.To better understand disability in quarter life crisis, this paper suggests that one perspective is particularly useful.This perspective is made up of an area of study that is known as ‘critical disability studies’ and an approach to understanding people’s lives that is called the ‘life course approach’.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".