Uncertain Subjects: Shaping Disabled Women’s Lives Through Income Support Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a critical reading of one aspect of the “third mobilization of transinstitutionalization” (Haley & Jones, 2018), focused on how power is exercised through the B.C. government income support program (or the ambiguously-named B.C. Benefits), shaping the embodied lives of women living with chronic physical and mental impairments. I research and write as a woman living with a disabling chronic illness whose explicit focus is power: how it is enacted and what it produces in the everyday lives of women with disabling chronic conditions living on income support. I too have been the recipient of disability income support. Thus, my accounts are ‘interested.’ My writing seeks to create a disruptive reading that destabilizes common-sense notions about disabled women securing provincial income support benefits, in particular in British Columbia (B.C.), interviewed as part of my doctoral research. Despite public claims by the B.C. government to foster the independence, community participation, and citizenship of disabled people in B.C., the intersection of government policy and practices and how they are read and taken up by disabled women discipline them in ways that produce profound uncertainty in their lives, such that these women become uncertain subjects (Kimpson, 2015).
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".