Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability Studies has emerged as a significant field of study in the late twentieth century, primarily, in The U.S, The U.K, and Canada. This field of study examines the social, cultural, and environmental nature of disability, and projects it as an interdisciplinary academic terrain that focuses on the contributions, experiences, history and culture of people with disabilities. Blindness is usually identified as one of the most widespread and frequently encountered disability in literary genres, and in literature, blindness has been represented as a topic through the ages. In the West, many analytical studies have emerged in relation to blindness as linked to the field of Disability Studies. Among them David Bolt’s The Metanarrative of Blindness: A Re-Reading of Twentieth Century Anglophone Writing, and Alice Hall’s Disability and Literature are prominent critical texts. David Bolt explores different forms of impairment and he tries to show the diversity and ambiguity of the term ‘disability’. Alice Hall in her book tries to explore formal and theoretical questions about disability and its representation in literature and culture. Not much attention has been given to representations of disability in Indian Literatures .There is a lack of analytical writing and literary criticism on the depiction of blindness in Indian Literatures. In short, Disability Studies has emerged as a current field of enquiry within literature, and in the West many studies have already emanated on the representations of disability in literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".