“How do we get all these Disabilities in here?”: Disability Film Festivals and the Politics of Atypicality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qu’est-ce qui change quand les personnes handicapées deviennent le public cible du cinéma plutôt que son objet, et que l’espace des festivals du film sur l’infirmité devient un lieu d’interaction? Le cinéma sur l’infirmité a produit une énorme quantité d’œuvres et le champ significatif qu’il constitue est de plus en plus divers. Simultanément, le film sur l’infirmité a cultivé chez le spectateur une reconnaissance le l’exclusion que partagent les personnes handicapés à travers les culturels, tout en fournissant des perspectives favorables à [’observation de différences géographiques, sociales, médicales, empiriques et disciplinaires. La virtualité du cinéma crée un espace alternatif qui sert de lieu de discussion pour les personnes handicapées qui peuvent y exprimer leurs préoccupations. La théorie de David Harvey sur « simultanéité » post-moderne offre une base solide pour analyser l’espace agonistique des festivals du film sur l’infirmité et leur public qui regarde autant qu’il commente.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".