Toward a politics of shame: cripping understandings of affect in disabled people’s encounters with unsolicited advice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of unsolicited advice in the lives of disabled people is well-catalogued in the mass of articles and social media posts dedicated to the issue. However, less is known about the affective impacts of this advice on disabled people and the potential resistance that may be enacted, such as shame, toward affects labelled negative. The present manuscript builds from original qualitative research to explore the links between emotion, mind, and body that occur in interactions involving unsolicited advice between disabled and non-disabled individuals. Non-probability convenience sampling was used to recruit 15 disabled individuals in Ontario, Canada for participation in semi-structured qualitative interviews that were inductively coded and narratively restoried. Building from these narrative accounts, the research addresses (1) the affective impacts of unsolicited advice on disabled people and (2) how disabled people negotiate the emotional impact resulting from unsolicited advice and blame culture individually and collectively. Ultimately, this research argues that, while unsolicited advice acts as a method of blaming and shaming that has the potential to structure disabled peoples’ lives, disabled people resist feeling ashamed and instead bridge from initial responses of fear and shame toward other emotions such as apathy and sadness in resistant and potentially empowering ways.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".