MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161945853 · doi:10.82308/1536

Navigating multiple identities through art-making: stories of artists with congenital and acquired physical impairments

2020· dissertation· en· W7161945853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Acheson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)NegotiationNarrativeSocial identity theoryDisability studiesThe artsTask (project management)Qualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructing and negotiating one’s identities is a central life task that continues across the lifespan and occurs within specific social, cultural, and historical contexts. For persons with impairments, dominant social beliefs and ideas embedded within these contexts, are likely to shape self-perceptions and the identities individuals construct. While negative stereotypes and ideas have historically been associated with disability, this diverse group of people has strived, both collectively and individually, to resist negative characterizations. One example of these efforts is the Disability Arts Movement and within the existing literature, we find evidence that creating and sharing art can help individuals with a stigmatized difference develop less negative, and more explicitly positive disability identities (Swain, French & Cameron, 2003), as well as serving as an avenue for developing and affirming one’s valued identity as an artist (Sulewski, 2012). In this study, I build from this evidence to explore the more specific question of how Contemporary Canadian artists with physical impairments, both congenital and acquired, negotiate their multiple intersecting identities. I use disability and artist identities as entry points and investigate how art-making can be used to manage a host of other valued identities. Two theoretical frameworks, the social model of disability, and intersectional theory have guided me in this work. A narrative methodology was used to examine how identities changed over time. Participants were recruited through flyers, word of mouth, list servers, and attending community events. Twelve individuals with acquired and / or congenital physical impairments agreed to be interviewed for this research project. Participants’ identities, in particular their identity as a person with an impairment and an artist, developed and changed over time in multiple ways. These identities solidified over time but were also revised and evolved based on other life experiences. With respect to their embodied experience, they identified environmental and interpersonal challenges, the ways they coped with these challenges, as well as how these experiences informed the process of accepting themselves as persons with different bodies. Additionally, they described their artistic practise, the functions their practise played in their lives over time, and how their practise was informed by living with different bodies. Furthermore, they described their experiences at multiple life stages and in multiple contexts, including family, school, work, along with disability and artistic communities. These experiences supported the development of a host of intersecting identities. More specifically, influencing, and reinforcing both positive and negative self-perceptions tied to disability, artist, family, partner, student and community identities. The multiple ways this study built upon the existing literature and unique contributions were identified. From the results, several research and clinical practice implications were also identified

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207