The Act of Noticing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on a panel discussion that took place at the 2025 Including Disability Global Summit (IDGS) in which co-authors had a structured conversation about their experiences with academic advising and accommodations at both Canadian and American universities. Testimonies of the co-authors were then analyzed and translated into 32 theoretical codes across 4 categories: Barriers, Support, In the Future, and Message. The co-authors span multiple academic programs, including: Forensic Psychology, Political Science, Sociology, Education, Musicology, Social Work, Kinesiology, Communications & Digital Studies, Library & Information Studies, and Archival Studies. By sharing their experiences both inside and outside of the classroom, it becomes clear that in-community mentorship and support from academic staff—especially academic advisors—can help students find their places in universities. There is no reason for disabled students to be counted out or left behind, and sometimes all it takes to begin supporting them is an act of noticing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".