‘Stories of Access’: Tangled Art + Disability and cultural accessibility in action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we engage a transdisciplinary perspective to analyse cultural accessibility practices, which are access practices developed by disabled people for the cultural field. Cultural accessibility seeks to disrupt normative culture by creating flexible practices that centre disabled people and disability community. Drawing on research with Tangled Art + Disability, a disability art gallery in Toronto, Canada, we explore the iterative and collaborative processes through which the organization has developed cultural accessibility practices. We narrate the provenance of these practices through ‘Stories of Access’ that illustrate how the context of the gallery – including artists, staff, audiences, resources, technologies, materials, spaces, policies and access commitments – influenced their development. Throughout, we demonstrate how thinking about practices of cultural accessibility as themselves transdisciplinary allows us to track more nuanced origin stories as embedded in institutional history, crip wisdom and practices and organizational specificity and resist the ways that access is taken up as a non-relational practice.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".