Differences as potentials: A posthuman re-envisioning of disability and mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a posthuman onto-epistemology, this paper explores movements of bodies labelled-as-disabled as creative 'choreographies' that are coproduced through the coming together of multiple material, social, discursive and affective forces across time-spaces. The purpose is to challenge thinking as usual towards re-envisioning differences as potentials rather than deficits. To do so, we consider how disability can move deficit-thinking and how mobility can be put to work to rethink disability. Movement and mobility in relation to disability are frequently discussed in terms of bodily deficits and/or disabling access barriers. Deficit-thinking separates people into categories of disabled or so-called 'abled' wherein reforms are oriented to erasure of differences through providing disabled people with access to a normal/ized life. In this posthuman analysis we advance an affirmative way of thinking about differences by recursively retheorizing disability through movement and retheorizing movement through disability. To do so we present three 'mobility experiments' generated from a recent study conducted with five youth partners who identified as disabled. Within the experiments, we position creative mobilities as micro-activist becomings that suggest avenues for celebrating differences towards instigating radical change. We conclude with a discussion of posthuman disability ethics and the implications of our analysis for thinking and doing differently in healthcare and beyond.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 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".