(Im)possibilities: The occupation of storytelling injustice
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 a socio-political context where initiatives to promote justice and anti-oppressive approaches should be at the forefront of transformations for health and occupational equity, naming and opposing systemic inequalities is an ethical necessity. This is likely to be understood differently depending on one’s position. The risks and challenges lie partly in the fact that neither practitioners nor scientists share the same histories, they do not draw on shared theories or languages, and the narratives of professional disciplines such as occupational therapy are dominated by white, cisgender female, heterosexual, enabled, Western and middle-to-upper class voices. This paper draws on the philosophies of phenomenology and hermeneutics, and anti-oppressive ethics, to offer a way of conceptualizing telling stories of injustice and speaking out against inequities as an occupation. The structure of this paper is offered as a ‘mise en abyme’ that vacillates between theorizing the act of storytelling as an occupation, illustrations to animate the concepts for the reader, and my own cultural resources as I write this story. This paper offers a relational understanding of storytelling and story making around injustice as an experience that can foster transformative possibilities in co-creating and imagining wider horizons for anti-oppressive practices that are accountable to marginalized groups.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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