Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter is a development and exploration of an idea we suggested in our introduction to an edited collection, Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law.1 Our goal here is to pursue two lines of inquiry. The first (and perhaps least controversial) is a descriptive claim: despite having their equality rights enshrined in the Charter, persons with disabilities in Canada are denied full citizenship status; they are treated as “partial citizens”2 and, as such, they experience a “cheap and shoddy imitation”3 of citizenship, a regime of dis-citizenship. The second (perhaps more controversial) inquiry is normative and prescriptive: it explores whether the idea of dis-citizenship can be deployed proactively to highlight the analytical and jurisprudential potential of a new category of political subjects. Specifically, we hope to identify the particular rights of persons with disabilities and to take account of their differential needs, in order to ensure that they have genuine equality and access to all the benefits (and responsibilities) of Canadian citizenship. Our goal is to go beyond abstract and formal understandings of citizenship to one that is grounded and inclusive, in tune with the lived material circumstances of persons with disabilities. As part of the effort to keep our analysis grounded, we will incorporate four case studies into the discussion.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".