‘Stories of Access’: Tangled Art + Disability and cultural accessibility in action
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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