Inadvertent construction of inequality by digital media: Conceptualizations via the international classification of functioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper posits that the concept of ability acts as a confounder in digital media discourse, potentially contributing to persistence of classism and economic inequalities to the detriment of social outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning (ICF) is used as a theoretical framework, with the objective of interrogating the discursive concept of ability in digital media discourse and coding of class. Social structures and other environmental structures emerge as critical to impair ability, although historically media discourse – including scientific literature – have emphasized personal factors including existing marginalizations such as race, ethnicity, or gender. Marginalization arising from existing social structures and other environmental structures, therefore, interacts with digital media to construct ideologies surrounding class in relation to the symbolic annihilation of other forms of intersectional marginalization. The concept of structural polarization is proposed via assessment of a British framework on media stereotypes, applied to demonstrate how media discourse around marginalization can result in social stratification regardless of intent. With tremendous positive potential for digital media to be applied in social work advocacy, community empowerment, and direct provision of essential human services, twelve considerations are organized into a preliminary conceptual framework – toward supporting future media in minimizing outcomes associated with inadvertent disempowerment.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it