Publishing Thoughts from the Bed Sorbonne: Toward A Crip Publishing Manifestx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this piece I draw on my experiences as a neuroqueer editor of the peer-reviewed, intersectional, and intermedia independent journal Feral Feminisms and on disability justice to hone a short manifestx on crip publishing. While peer-reviewed journals often demand free, invisible, and feminized labor along with high-speed efficiency, I imagine crip approaches to publishing as necessitating such principles as slowness, anti-fascism, recognition, care, failure, multiple mediums for knowledge-making, and community building. The piece begins with a reflection from the “Bed Sorbonne” or academic’s bed office, and moves into a consideration of how thinking sustainable publishing with lichen can enliven our publishing praxes. Finally, I outline the nine part manifestx as a starting point for imagining crip informed publication models. The hybrid and art-based piece engages with the theme of sustainable publishing by thinking about how to make publishing sustainable—as in doable, feasible, possible, limitless— both for crip authors/creators and crip journal editors.
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 | 0.032 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".