Missing Parts: A Critical Analysis of Amputees and Disability History in Three Canadian Archives and Museums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the ways that disability history in Canada—specifically amputee history—is constructed and presented in different museums and archives through three case studies: The Middleville and District Museum, the Museum of Health Care at Kingston, and Library and Archives Canada. Through the lens of critical disability studies, I investigate the narratives and conceptions of disability within each of these institutions and bring disability into conversation with archival studies in order to recommend ways that disability history might be made more discoverable, accessible, and equitable. Each institution, representing different types of museums and archives in Canada, is useful and important for the study of disability history for different reasons, and each requires different archival methodologies when dealing with disability. This thesis recognizes and argues the importance of examining the processes and systems at play in museums and archives which construct particular views of disability history.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.076 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".