Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unbothered by disruption of body and mind, the abled body moves and acts freely without consequences. This abled body, within the vernaculars of visual culture, represents a dogmatic portrayal of naturalism that privileges itself as the normative representation of idealism. However, these sentiments affirm bias for the disabled body, as well as sensory and mental impairment, as undesirable. Historically, politically, and culturally marked by their differences, these polarities of disability and ability reveal the systematic ableism that is presented within the exhibition of museums and galleries. By examining the relationship between disability and museum studies, this paper looks at how exhibitions engage with disabilities in relation to ableism and the notions of the ideal citizen. Considering the historical, social, and political discourse of disability, this paper considers how exhibitions can confront the stigma of disability by analyzing the relationships between visual culture and disability, the universal survey museum, and its exclusion of the other. Through close examination of accessible galleries, such as Tangled Art + Disability Gallery, I argue that the democratization of museums through the inclusion of others creates inclusivity that reflects the new era of museum studies and the current construction of identity politics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".