Cripistemologies of Disability Arts and Culture: Reflections on the Cripping the Arts Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>[Introduction:] "In 2014, in the introduction to their special issue of the Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, Merri Lisa Johnson and Robert McRuer introduced the field of disability studies to the concept of cripistemologies. As described by Johnson and McRuer, although there are many different ways of knowing disability that circulate throughout our culture, epistemologies of disability generated outside of disability experience, community, and activism are the most legible and lucrative within a neoliberal culture, and therefore most readily taken up (2014, p. 128). Disability studies, disability activism, and disability arts and culture as imbricated movements led by and for disabled people that advance a disability politic, centre meanings of disability that are generated through Deaf, disabled, and mad people’s experiences and knowledge. These ways of knowing disability are succinctly expressed through the term “cripistemology,” which refers to knowing, and not knowing, disability through disability experiences as these are understood by and for disability communities (2014, p. 127)."</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".