“Asking for Help was Really Helpful, but Definitely Hard to Say”: A Comparative Analysis of the Intersection of Disability and Masculinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small body of work has examined the intersection of masculinity and disability. Key early studies focused attention on the ways in which men with acquired physical disabilities negotiated this dilemma, and the extent to which their strategies contested or reproduced gender norms. Recent work has called for greater attention to the diversity of men’s experiences across disabilities, as well as the dynamic and shifting configurations of gender and disability. In this paper, we engage with recent disability studies scholarship to consider how gender relations and masculinity intersect with ableism as a system of oppression. We draw on qualitative arts-informed research to present a comparative analysis of three men’s embodied experiences of chronic physical illness, intellectual disability, and psychiatric disability. The analysis highlights how complex relations between disability, (re)habilitation, breadwinning and heteronormative domesticity shape the lives and identities of all three men, albeit in quite different ways. As such, the paper provides an important illustration of the varied, dynamic, and often contradictory ways in which men negotiate gendered experiences of illness and disablement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".