“Te Kore and the Artiste within: De-Tyrannizing Autistic Viewpoints in Life, Self, and Identity through Creative Methodologies”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The voices of the autistic community have been systematically forfeited in research and practice, both as a consequence of the double empathy problem and, as a direct result of albeist methodic approaches to researching and representing autism (Milton, 2012., Goodley, 2016, 2018., Heilker & Yergeau, 2011., Hobson et al, 2022., Ridout, 2017). Methodologically speaking, autism creates challenges for allistic researchers, particularly as there is an associated “exaggerated risk” of researching autistic people and as researchers frequently study and thus experience autism, from etic perspectives (Van De Hoonard, 2016, p. 585). This paper contends that these challenges have resulted in a lack of flexibility in methodologies designed to protect those at risk of harm, creating disproportionate fear and an over-surveillance of autistic research participants, despite their potential. Inertia is a direct consequence of this, which manifests itself twofold. Firstly, as the struggle researchers have in capturing meaningful and authentic autistic representation and secondly, of the methodic implications autistic inertia presents. What is suggested, therefore, is a subversion of homogeneous ways of knowing from the production of quasi-aesthetic representations of autistic voice, favoring those creative methodologies which appreciate that autism is not experienced diachronically. As to capture the realities of contemporary autistic life, dividing practices of ableism must be challenged (Goodley, 2018). Therefore, by centralizing autistic research participants as “insiders” to autistic worlds, researchers will have to lay aside academic habits and rethink, heuristically, how to privilege unobscured autistic voices through transabelism (Garland-Thompson, 2005). For in order to carve out hybrid dilatory spaces from which autistic people can develop their narrative capital, a transableist agenda must be pushed. What will ensue are creative and flexible methodologies that align with social justice beliefs and resist methodic stasis and inertia; as decisions to explore the lifeworlds we experience, as autists, comes with no modus operandi.
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 | 0.030 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".