Keeping the Conversation Going: Rendering Each Other Capable While Creating Zines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to Lee de Bie and Kate Brown’s webinar on neuroatypicality in academia, Lieve Carette and Lee de Bie delve into the concept of “relational access” and its transformative influence on neurodivergent relationships, overcoming obstacles and expanding possibilities of support. Drawing inspiration from the creative initiatives of Mad and neurodivergent students and staff reshaping the academy, the authors share insights from their 6-year friendship, exploring the challenges of navigating university through neuroatypicality. Their interconnected reflections underscore the importance of facilitating the creation of the zine “Outliers” in shaping their dialogues. Within the context of Qualitative Inquiry, this article indirectly explores zines as an academic methodology, emphasizing the integral role of the intimate relationship in zine project development and personal and professional growth. The paper concentrates on the zine’s impact within their relationship, accentuating its modest contribution to the project’s inception compared with its substantial significance in their lives and personal growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".