Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interconnection of language and societal context is demonstrated through the Library of Congress Subject Headings surrounding disability. This study examines and compares how language encapsulates contemporary understandings of disability in the second edition (1919) and eighth edition (1975). Created and published during the so-called “Progressive Era,” the second edition emphasizes Victorian beliefs in the correspondence of morality with participation in the labour force and genetic fitness (i.e., conformity to physical and psychological norms). The language of this context further marginalized persons with disabilities. In contrast, the eighth edition marks the growing respect for and autonomy of people with disabilities, with language related to the civil rights movement, medical advances, and the replacement of ableist terms such as “Deaf and dumb” with neutral terms or self-definitions, such as “Deaf.” This evolution demonstrates the positive effects when we as librarians accept our social responsibility to eschew marginalizing language and instead use language that affirms minority identities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".