Planning Radical Imperfection: Generating Meaningful Accessibility in Cultural Spaces Through Lessons of Disability Experience, Cultures, and Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This major research paper investigates the experiences of people with disabilities (PWD) within cultural spaces in order to produce a framework for understanding how planners might provide meaningful accessibility within the built environment. The current practices of planners are not meeting the needs of most PWD because planners have not been given the opportunity to learn from disability histories, cultures nor experience. My research, therefore, engaged five participants who all identify as Blind, low-vision or visually impaired in a focus group and semi-structured interview, to gather insights into how the accessibility of cultural spaces generates meaningful inclusion for PWD. The central theoretical framework is "crip theory", an academic lens in which disability is valued as a source of knowledge. My research reveals how a "cripped" understanding of access, paired with the lived experiences of PWD in accessing cultural spaces, can be applied to improve the way planners engage with accessibility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".