“What about the rest of me?”: a post-colonial and critical disability analysis of the Invictus Games docuserie <i>s</i> and its representation of war, injury, and recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by a Global South perspective, this paper investigates the sport-military nexus through a media content analysis of the 2023 ‘Heart of Invictus’ docuseries about the Invictus Games, an international multi-parasport competition featuring injured veterans. We employa post-colonial and critical disability approach to critically examine the use of sport in entangling national identity with discourses of war, peace, mental health/illness, disability, and rehabilitation. The findings highlight the role of the Invictus Games in perpetuating myths of linear redemption and recovery related to acquired disabilities, pain, and trauma, while also reproducing racialized representations of pain amongst wounded veterans. The findings further position the Invictus Games’ “unconquered” ethos in the docuseries as an extension of imperial subjugation and the erasure of the post-9/11 wars’ consequences for colonized (injured, Brown) bodies. Finally, the authors argue that the sport-military nexus constructed in ‘Hearts of Invictus’ reproduces a framework of ableimperalism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".