Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ableism is an undeniable reality which exists in university spaces as a lens through which disabled students are perceived and judged.At the very outset, Dolmage (2017) orients the reader towards interaction with the ableism versus disablism discourse, defining the former as positive perceptions toward able-bodiedness and the latter as outright negative views toward the state of being disabled.The book begins with an introductory section that is fraught with examples of ableist mechanisms at play in the physical structures and the underlying psyche of students and faculty at large in the contemporary Western university system encompassing Canadian, American, and British higher education.Dolmage instantiates ableism through the metaphor of the "steep steps" by alluding to an illustration depicting an architectural structure comprised of towering pillars and narrow steps leading to a library in an educational institute.Dolmage's (2017) foregoing metaphor is one that is creative yet powerful in that it sets the tone and the overarching theme that characterize the chapters that follow, namely the ableist structuring of spaces and attitudes in higher education.In chapter 2, for example, the book shifts attention to the concept of disability accommodation and conceptualizes it essentially as a "retrofit."This term is used to stress the notion that typical accommodations in higher education settings represent essentially an adjustment made retroactively to help the disabled student adapt to the ableist environment.Accommodations, in other words, are essentially a supplement or a band-aid rather than a long-term solution to the pressing issues surrounding ableist perceptions
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".