Deconstructing reconstructing: Disability theory as a path to additional breast cancer identities through acts of bodily resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conference paper presented at the Canadian Disability Studies Association Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 2016. \n Over the last decades the exploration of diverse bodies have been effectively applied in feminist disability studies and disability studies more generally. Considering the increased incidence of advanced breast cancer resulting in mastectomy in young women (Johnson, 2013) ideas about divergent bodies are touching the mainstream to a greater degree. Looking to my own experience with breast cancer and the host of physical changes that have emerged as part of this journey, I have looked to disability studies and theoretical concepts of the body to explore my lived reality. This paper uses my own physical transformation to explore a medical system entrenched in traditional standards of female beauty during cancer treatment. More specifically I explore my experience of the hesitance of the medical community to allow women to diminish their femininity in the name of making them feel better about themselves. This paper calls for those who have undergone and are undergoing treatment to engage beyond the pink ribbon script of breast cancer and to instead look to the value of diverse bodies in spite of medical advice to the contrary. Acts of bodily resistance are explored as an additional path to wellness and a way to challenge normative gender based scripts of traditional femininity. At this time, having had my reconstructed breast implants removed and adorning my scarred chest with tattoos of my own choosing, I demonstrate the reclamation of my body from the medical space that it previously inhabited. My own example, along with the nonconventional transformations of others demonstrates the power of an act of bodily resistance as an effectual way to value and celebrate diverse bodies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".