Enacting Reciprocity and Solidarity: Critical Access as Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the growing field of critical access studies, this article positions critical access as a research methodology that aligns with feminist praxis and disability politics. We begin by mapping our central concept in relation to literature on feminist disability studies, crip methodology, feminist methodology, and critical access. We then demonstrate critical access methodology in practice drawing on our collective research programs. Our first example comes from a workshop exploring citizen photojournalism as part of Stretching Our Stories and takes up non-linear and unverifiable journalistic accounts by disabled people. We follow this with an example from Practicing the Social, a three-day online artistic research and knowledge mobilisation event, which foregrounds the complexity of structuring pace and time. We conclude by suggesting that approaching critical access as methodology makes it possible to embrace moments of friction. Throughout this article, we argue that access, when taken up critically, becomes a transformative process that can contribute to the development of a feminist research methodology that supports research directed towards crip-feminist futurities.
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 | 0.190 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.106 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".