An Exhausting Job: A Story of Psychiatric Disability in University as Performativity (Dis)Rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who gets to perform the identity of student? How does the process of obtaining accommodations affect a student’s sense of belonging in university? What messages do faculty attitudes send to students who seek accommodations for psychiatric disability? To facilitate addressing these questions, this article uses the fictional short story form to explore one student’s journey to receive accommodations in her classes during a manic episode of bipolar disorder. Drawing data from literature review and researcher lived experience, the story seeks to portray the complexity of navigating higher education’s disability services system. The story-as-research aims to build empathy through inviting readers to place themselves in the mind of the main character, to consider the messages she receives about (non)belonging from faculty who view accommodations from different standpoints. The article offers insight into the complex interplay of internalized stigma, passing as (dis)abled, and navigating discourses within an educational institution. Keywords: psychiatric disability, higher education, fiction-based research, performativity, accommodations
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".