MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7120135036 · doi:10.1515/9783839457887-015

Access Work in Disability Communities

2025· book-chapter· W7120135036 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hanna Göbel

Bibliographic record

Venuetranscript Verlag eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsNegotiationSituatedDisability studiesDominance (genetics)PluralDigital divideEthnographyReflexivityWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What if participants with bodily dispositions, such as deafness or blindness, took part in video conference sessions?In deaf and/or blind disability communities, data intensive digital environments are experienced as vulnerable and it has been argued, since the late 1990s onwards, that they cannot be treated as given, culturally inclusive spatial surroundings (Kitchin 2000; Goggin and Newell 2000).Spatial environments can be identified as a "dis/ability complex" (Goodley 2014) based upon experiences of power and violence in various disability communities and as situated social constellations under which both inclusive bodily abilities are negotiated and in which exclusionary mechanisms of disabling become reproduced.Research on disability communities and digital spaces during the Covid-19 pandemic (Yong et al. 2025) in particular has shown that digital solutions can be seen as a non-adequate factor to coping with isolation and loneliness.Digital participation by sensory and bodily means is limited because of the dominance of visuality and aurality that are encoded into technological devices, and because of the required touch-, movement-, and gesture-based competences in handling them.Even though universal design is an established field concerned with disability communities, these are not envisioned for plural sensory and bodily dispositions when it comes to digital devices and software environments (Hamraie 2017).To feel oneself as a "participant" (Kelty 2019) in a video conferencing environment, thus, always requires complex and resource-intensive media translations, infrastructural reconfigurations, and not mere promises of inclusivity.These circumstances become particularly pressing in disability communities because sensory and bodily participation is organized based upon a lack of resources and negotiations for corporeal standards in digital infrastructures that have not taken place in the context of diversifying access to society.This chapter argues for the consideration of access work in digital disability communities; I wish to call for a cultural repair of the promises of inclusivity in digital spaces in order to argue for greater acknowledgment and visibility of this mandatory work and to inquire into modi of participation for a future common ground of action.In order to realize this speculative approach, I wish to utilize the method of pre-enactment, as an ethnographic way of knowledge production, in order to trace

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetranscript Verlag eBooksSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207