Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction]: "Throughout the 47-year history of the Canadian Journal of Communication (CJC), the topic of disability has been a faint note played in the background. Only occasionally, it comes to the fore to sing in the chorus with other socially constructed categories, such as gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, social class, and health. Although there is a growing call for “cripping” communication to address the longstanding ableism in the field, (e.g., St. Pierre, 2015), scholarly interest in disability tends to fall far behind other topics in the fast-expanding field of critical communication studies. This playlist features hidden gems in CJC’s vast archives. The five articles featured here address in one way or another how communication shapes the way we see, feel, and live disabled bodies. These pieces date from 1980 to 2011, each bearing witness to the changing relationship between disability and communication. There is a shared recognition among the authors about the role of communication in perpetuating the “hegemony of normalcy” (Davis, 1995, p. 24) that normalizes certain forms of human variation while excluding others. Some authors problematize the stigmatizing stereotypes and derogatory images the media attaches to the disabled, while others address how communication mediums can be used to both enable and disable people with disabilities. Others shed light on agentic voices of the disabled that are striving to reconstruct coherent identities beyond medical labelling."
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".