Weighing In
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodiversity as a concept, identity, and movement has radically challenged pre-existing ideas of human difference and value. First proposed by Judy Singer (1998) and largely developed through the work of community activists, neurodiversity posits an alternative to pathologizing and medicalized understandings of human differences. This article explores the ways neurodiversity is being used, defined, and deployed based on a corpus of 94 academic texts published across social science disciplines (2006–2021). Using discourse analysis methods derived primarily from Fairclough (2001, 2003), we examine how neurodiversity has been claimed and refashioned within academia. Neurodiversity was often seen as an embodied difference, and was variously portrayed as dichotomous, universal, or existing on a spectrum. Many authors followed an “Autism Plus” strategy, keeping autism at the center of discussions. Academic writers of the texts on neurodiversity overwhelmingly launched their own claims to authority, even as they simultaneously positioned themselves as out of the fray.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.205 | 0.061 |
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".