Human Enhacement Through the Ableism Lens. Gregor Wolbring: An e-mail interview made by Francisco Guzmán
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABLEISM 1. Ableism is a concept used by the disabled people community and further expanded on by you.What is the contribution of this concept to the enhancement controversy?The term ableism evolved from the civil rights movements in the United States and Britain during the 1960s and 1970s to question and highlight the prejudice and discrimination people experienced whose body structure and ability functioning was labelled as 'impaired' as sub speciestypical.Ableism of this flavour was defined as a set of beliefs, processes and practices that favours species-typical normative body structure based abilities and labels subnormative species-typical biological structures as deficient, as not able to perform as required, as being in need of fixing.The disabled people rights discourse and scholars of the academic field of disability studies (for a list of disability studies programs see (Steven Taylor, 2003)) questions the favouritism for normative species-typical body abilities (Carlson, 2001;Finkelstein,
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".