Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the meaning of disability, and how are our conceptions of disability formed in contemporary society?In this book, Tanya Titchkosky challenges us to read and write disability differently than we ordinarily do in daily life.Through the examination of everyday texts about disability, this unique and detailed study explores how disability is put into text, narrated, and made present in readers' lives.Using interpretive social theory, Reading and Writing Disability Differently engages news media and policy texts that depict disability as a clear-cut problem in need of clear-cut solutions.These texts become opportunities to reveal dominant Western ways of constituting the meaning of people, and the .meaning of problems, as they relate to contemporary understandings of our embodied selves.Releasing disability's power as something more than a problem, and other than positive or negative, this study demonstrates the imaginative potential of regarding texts on disability as sites to examine neoliberal culture.Given that media and policy texts on disability are informed by tacit cultural assumptions, these texts serve as a social scene worthy of critical inquiry.We are shown how we can pursue a self-reflexive analysis of ordinary ways or reading and writing as they constitute embodiment as a problem, and how we might escape the confines of a collective imagination dedicated only to solving troubles.The rigorous mixing of social theory and concrete analysis allows for the possibility of a radical new approach to disability.Titchkosky holds that through an exploration of the potential that lies behind limited representations of disability, we can relate to disability as a meaningful form of resistance to the restricted normative order of contemporary embodiment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.885 | 0.801 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".