Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines some of the key developments in, and contributions of, feminist perspectives on disability. It argues that both the disability and women’s movements failed to acknowledge and engage with disabled women’s lives. This was an impetus to sharing personal accounts of disabled women’s oppression—some of which were autoethnographic, and others biographical. The general aim, much like that of the women’s liberation movement, was to make the “personal” political and in doing so to provide opportunities for social change. This was a form of consciousness-raising in feminist disability studies and activism. And it contributed to feminist efforts to bring the body and mind back into critical analyses of disability—a focus that had been jeopardized as strong social models of disability that equated disability with social barriers to inclusion, and became increasingly influential among disability scholars and activists. The new millennium has seen feminist accounts of disability further develop and change. Growing emphasis on intersectionality has encouraged a multiplicity of differences to be considered in understanding the lives and oppression of disabled people. This includes studies that broaden the range of mind and body differences considered to be disabling (e.g., being “fat”). Engagement with the interdisciplinary literature on queer studies is encouraging new perspectives on disability, impairment, and ableness including attempts to situate the oppression of disabled people in the dynamics of contemporary global capitalism. In these times of pandemic and war, we urgently need to build on this work to struggle for more enabling societies and places of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".