“There’s Just No Real Way to Win”: Disabled Archivists and Professionalism’s Paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centring around first person accounts, this article shows how some disabled archivists have experienced many different ableist expectations and assumptions in their work: through requirements in job descriptions, performance, and productivity and attitudes around comportment, accommodations, and disability. Drawing on a wide array of literature on disability, affect, and the archival profession while using data collected through interviews with disabled archivists, this article highlights some affective dimensions of archival labour. Interviewees’ past experiences led to an acute awareness of how they might or might not be perceived as “professional.” And managing this awareness and their concerns led to a variety of strategies: participants described overperforming, denying their own needs, and “pushing through” as well as expending significant amounts of time, energy, and work in anticipating, navigating, and managing others’ feelings and ableist attitudes. Together, these findings outline some of the ways disabled people experience the archival profession, perform labour that might be less legible and under-recognized, and feel about their place in the profession. Moreover, such labour illustrates a double bind for disabled archivists – what we might call a paradox of archival ableism. As they navigate others’ assumptions about disability – discriminatory opinions about capabilities,harmful behaviour, and ableist expectations – they simultaneously have to over-perform, advocate for their own worthiness for accommodations, and balance the ways these efforts might counteract, contradict, or work against each other. In other words, the paradox of archival ableism is how ableism produces a double bind of having to prove that one is both capable of work and also deserving of the very accommodations needed to do the work and how these efforts often work against each other.
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 | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.140 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".