Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with intellectual disabilities have had a long history of exclusion and enforced dependency. As this commentary examines, the uncertainty regarding their definition and an acknowledgement that a person with an intellectual disability can be particularly vulnerable to dependency, has led to a very hidden geography for this group. From the middle of the last century, geographers examined the locational separation of people committed to the ‘idiot’ asylums of Victorian Britain and Canada. It was clear that the asylum had a symbolic influence in the community well beyond its rather narrow role as the place of residence. More recently geographers have traced the movement of people with intellectual disabilities to group homes, co-operative housing, residence with parents and independent housing. It was hoped that the relocation from isolated standalone institutions would help to get rid of, or diminish stigmatisation. However, Hall urges us to move away from assuming that marginalisation equates solely with exclusion from mainstream social activities and spaces, and constructing inclusion as a process of incorporation into these activities and spaces. This commentary therefore forces us to take a critical approach on today’s geography of care, where we move beyond narrow binaries of institutionalisation/ deinstitutionalisation, isolation/integration and success/failure. We must be critical of the spaces of incorporation and not assume a place of incorporation is the best choice for a person with an intellectual disability. This is particularly the case if people with intellectual disabilities face a mix of patronisation, fear, an unwillingness to understand ‘non-standard’ forms of communication, and a strong sense of difference in public life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".