Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter considers the relations between disability and the political in contemporary societies. This includes a discussion of possibilities of human agency and social movement capacities in the disability field. The analysis discusses several models of disability and statuses of bodies, which are evident in theory, movement advocacy, and public policy. These are the personal tragedy and worthy poor model, the biomedical model, the social model, the human rights model, and the psychoemotional model of disability. The chapter then examines activism as a repertoire of activities and roles taking place in various jurisdictional spaces and territorial scales of mobilization. The chapter next analyzes three forms of social injustices and advocacy strategies pursued by contemporary disability rights movements: activism centered on recognition, redistribution, and representation. Concluding observations call on the need to examine disability and the struggle for social justice in relation to a politics of cultural recognition and identity, a politics of socioeconomic redistribution of material goods and services, and a politics of democratic representation that combines conventional and alternative modes of decision-making. Over time, the mix and style of activism may shift at the level of the individual or family, the agency or movement organization, or the national and international sectors. This gives disability activism and the struggle for social justice dynamic qualities enacted through symbolic, materialist, and political concerns in interaction with public and private authorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".