#AccessibleYoga for whom? The non-performativity of accessibility and inclusion on Instagram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yoga has a long contentious history of accessibility and inclusion. Scholars and practitioner-activists today call for inclusive yoga; however, even within seemingly inclusive yoga campaigns in digital spaces, depictions of the practice often exclude bodies of difference. We use Sara Ahmed’s theorizing of non-performatives to explore #AccessibleYoga and #InclusiveYoga and understand how possibilities for bodies of difference are profuse or sparse on Instagram. Layering our analysis with Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s feminist disability theory of misfitting, we consider yoga’s potential to create places for bodily affirmation in the future of yoga worlds. For our study, we applied a reflexive thematic analysis and named the following themes: the non-performativity of language, permissible diversity, and cripping yoga(?). We found diversity at the exclusion of disability, but also observed creative use of props that nods to the potential cripping of yoga. We interrogate the non-performativities of language within yoga and explore relational approaches to access.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".