MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133071344

The representation of disability by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) during the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games

2007· dissertation· W7133071344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2007
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationRepresentation (politics)Dominance (genetics)Broadcasting (networking)AthletesWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this project was to explore how the Canadian Paralympic athlete was represented by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and to consider the potential implications of these representations. This project used critical disability theory as its theoretical orientation. Garland-Thomson's (2000) work described four visual modes used to construct images of disability and relationships of power. Qualitative analysis was performed by analysing imagery, audio, and production techniques to determine the construction of specific codes of representation. Samples were selected from CBC's television coverage of the XII Paralympic Games. The analysis indicated the dominant code was athletic. This representation although desirable constructed a uni-dimensional representation that denies human complexity and creates negative repercussions for people with impairment who cannot or do not wish to be athletic. Uni-dimensional representations were reserved almost exclusively for female athletes while male athletes were represented more often and more favourably. Bodies that appeared more 'normal' or less impaired continued to be favoured, reinforcing the dominance of able-bodied, male hegemony.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207