Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liam is a young man with Down Syndrome who I met during 16 months of ethnographic research in Montréal, Québec among intellectually disabled adults and their caregivers. Liam introduced me to his sockfriends, a group of socks that Liam understands as friends that his family understands as inanimate objects. Building on the conceptual foundations of queer kinship and intimacy, I analyze Liam’s relations with his sockfriends through the lens of what I call crip intimacy. I develop crip intimacy as an opportunity to think through the lived experience of intellectual disability, of being sexually regulated, and of being denied access to certain normative forms of intimacy. I draw on the work of queer and disabled scholars who analyze how conditions of sexual oppression, stigmatization, and ableism have given rise to particular kinds of kinship formations and intimacies between humans, non-humans, and others. POINTS OF INTERESTIntellectually disabled people are often desexualized by their caregivers and support workers.Concerns about hypersexuality and vulnerability mean that the sexuality of intellectually disabled people is often framed as a problem that needs to be managed.This article discusses the way that a young intellectually disabled man navigates his sexuality under conditions of sexual surveillance and regulation with a set of socks he calls sockfriends.Through intimacy with non-human objects (‘sockfriends’). the young man asserts his sexual agency and refuses his own dehumanization, or what I theorize as ‘crip intimacy’.The young man’s family also become involved in crip intimacy with sockfriends in meaningful and transformative ways.This article is based on data collected through ethnographic fieldwork, including participant observation and interviews.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".