Disability and cycling technology: A socio-historical analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores longstanding links between cycling and disability. Social models of disability and closely related theories on the social construction of technology are central to our approach. The former insists that disability is a social construct; the latter views technology as socially formed. Disabled persons engage in cycling for, among other things, the pleasure of moving about the city and countryside, parks and neighbourhoods, to access places of work and study, and to gain greater independence in their daily lives. They have played an active role in the development and adaptation of cycles to make them better suited to particular needs. Disabled persons, their friends and family, and technicians have shared ideas and information to design cycling machines that reduce the limitations of technologies and environments developed for so-called "able" bodies. Here, we present a typology identifying seven types of cycles that were and are used by disabled persons for varying purposes. They are as follows: transporters, pedomotives, manumotives, sociables, stability machines, tandems, and power-assisted bikes. In each case, examples existed in the nineteenth century or earlier but social construction and improved materials and technology have dramatically enhanced their utility in recent years.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it