Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Abilities Festival: A Celebration of Disability Art and Culture made its Toronto debut 27–30 October 2005. This project of the Canadian Abilities Foundation involved four days of multidisciplinary work by artists and performers from around the world. In addition to the gala performances, art exhibitions and concerts, the event included a series of panel discussions and workshops, which covered such broad-ranging topics as storytelling for children, broadcast journalism and career advice for artists with disabilities. Artistic director and producer Sharon Wolfe explains that the interaction made possible by the festival fosters a climate of inclusivity and understanding, as the participants build “bridges that will lead to inclusion. Bridges that will reduce attitudinal barriers and negative perceptions about people with disabilities, bridges that will lead us all to an enriched appreciation for the full spectrum of creative talent that exists here and beyond” (1). These points of contact were directly enabled by the liveness of the festival. Theatre with a Difference, the gala evening held at the Glenn Gould Studio, showcased bold pieces by Chaika, a dance—mime troupe from Moscow; Max Fomitchev, a mime artist from Vancouver who was born in Russia; and American humorist David Roche. Within the live performance setting, there exist tensions, pressures and reactions that serve, in this case, to reveal buried assumptions about persons with disabilities. The festival not only promotes a thriving and creative disabled culture by example but, through its live performances, is able to draw out hidden attitudes so they can be recognized, confronted and ultimately transformed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".