Writing intellectual disability: glimpses into precarious processes or re/making a cultural phenomenon

We make each other mean through precarious processes of engagement. This dissertation posits intellectual disability as a modernist subject category characterized by un-belonging and a presumed lack of normative expression. The author takes a hesitant, interpretive, and phenomenological approach to confronting the question of what it means to re/make intellectual disability as presence and process rather than as problem. The researcher engages with intellectual disability by introducing expressive writing as method under a feminist post structuralist framework of exploratory, relational ethics. In doing so, this project introduces the concepts of wonderment and triple-labelling to the fields of cultural studies and critical disability studies. This work advocates for a reorientation toward meaning-making and research-based engagement with intellectual disability as cultural, contextual, and relational phenomenon that remains unsettled as it situates researchers at a perceived limit of knowledge. This dissertation privileges process over resolution. The writing launches from an affect-laden epistemology of wonderment, and thus struggles to resolve its own ethical and methodological uncertainty as it attempts to center intellectual disability without (completely)privileging normative ways of un/knowing. This approach allows that the body is implicated in uncertain discursive processes that re-construct and circulate meanings about the body, the self,and the Other. Then, relying on Foucault’s conceptions of power and knowledge and Snyder and Mitchell's cultural location of disability framework, the study describes Western cultural memory: processes of mind/body splitting and subject-category building traceable through esoteric pre-modernity, eugenic modernity, and the post-identity politics of Davis’s dismodernity. A discussion of research ethics follows, which challenges rational methodological conceptions of intellectual disability that rely on preconceived notions of vulnerability. Before describing expressive writing as a primary research method, the author also makes a case for engaging with triple-labeled people (those labeled disabled, vulnerable, and incompetent) by writing in-relation-to, privileging silence and absence over “giving voice,” engaging in unfamiliarity and untranslatability, and attending to “the space between” the self and the Other.This writing uses reflexive vignettes and critical analysis to lead readers toward the researcher’s final phenomenological reflections on experiences with triple-labeled people writing in a Toronto day program.

Writing intellectual disability: glimpses into precarious processes or re/making a cultural phenomenon

We make each other mean through precarious processes of engagement. This dissertation posits intellectual disability as a modernist subject category characterized by un-belonging and a presumed lack of normative expression. The author takes a hesitant, interpretive, and phenomenological approach to confronting the question of what it means to re/make intellectual disability as presence and process rather than as problem. The researcher engages with intellectual disability by introducing expressive writing as method under a feminist post structuralist framework of exploratory, relational ethics. In doing so, this project introduces the concepts of wonderment and triple-labelling to the fields of cultural studies and critical disability studies. This work advocates for a reorientation toward meaning-making and research-based engagement with intellectual disability as cultural, contextual, and relational phenomenon that remains unsettled as it situates researchers at a perceived limit of knowledge. This dissertation privileges process over resolution. The writing launches from an affect-laden epistemology of wonderment, and thus struggles to resolve its own ethical and methodological uncertainty as it attempts to center intellectual disability without (completely)privileging normative ways of un/knowing. This approach allows that the body is implicated in uncertain discursive processes that re-construct and circulate meanings about the body, the self,and the Other. Then, relying on Foucault’s conceptions of power and knowledge and Snyder and Mitchell's cultural location of disability framework, the study describes Western cultural memory: processes of mind/body splitting and subject-category building traceable through esoteric pre-modernity, eugenic modernity, and the post-identity politics of Davis’s dismodernity. A discussion of research ethics follows, which challenges rational methodological conceptions of intellectual disability that rely on preconceived notions of vulnerability. Before describing expressive writing as a primary research method, the author also makes a case for engaging with triple-labeled people (those labeled disabled, vulnerable, and incompetent) by writing in-relation-to, privileging silence and absence over “giving voice,” engaging in unfamiliarity and untranslatability, and attending to “the space between” the self and the Other.This writing uses reflexive vignettes and critical analysis to lead readers toward the researcher’s final phenomenological reflections on experiences with triple-labeled people writing in a Toronto day program.

Large Scale Subject Category Classification of Scholarly Papers With Deep Attentive Neural Networks

Subject categories of scholarly papers generally refer to the knowledge domain(s) to which the papers belong, examples being computer science or physics. Subject category classification is a prerequisite for bibliometric studies, organizing scientific publications for domain knowledge extraction, and facilitating faceted searches for digital library search engines. Unfortunately, many academic papers do not have such information as part of their metadata. Most existing methods for solving this task focus on unsupervised learning that often relies on citation networks. However, a complete list of papers citing the current paper may not be readily available. In particular, new papers that have few or no citations cannot be classified using such methods. Here, we propose a deep attentive neural network (DANN) that classifies scholarly papers using only their abstracts. The network is trained using nine million abstracts from Web of Science (WoS). We also use the WoS schema that covers 104 subject categories. The proposed network consists of two bi-directional recurrent neural networks followed by an attention layer. We compare our model against baselines by varying the architecture and text representation. Our best model achieves micro-F1 measure of 0.76 with F1 of individual subject categories ranging from 0.50 to 0.95. The results showed the importance of retraining word embedding models to maximize the vocabulary overlap and the effectiveness of the attention mechanism. The combination of word vectors with TFIDF outperforms character and sentence level embedding models. We discuss imbalanced samples and overlapping categories and suggest possible strategies for mitigation. We also determine the subject category distribution in CiteSeerX by classifying a random sample of one million academic papers.

Scientometric evaluation of highly cited scientists in the field of forensic science and legal medicine

A publically available database of the most highly cited scientists in all disciplines was used to identify people that belonged to the subject category “forensic science and legal medicine.” This bibliometric information was derived from Elsevier’s SCOPUS database containing eight million scientists with at least five articles as author or co-author. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists were identified and ranked according to six citation metrics; total number of citations, H-index, H-index adjusted for co-authorship, citations to single-authored papers, citations to single or first author papers and, citations to single, first, or last-authored papers. The eight million entries in the SCOPUS database were sub-divided into 22 main subject categories and 176 sub-categories, one of which was legal and forensic medicine. The citation databases were provided as supplementary material in two articles published in PLoS Biology in 2019 and 2020. Among the top 100,000 most highly cited scientists, there were only 30 allocated to the legal and forensic medicine category, according to the 2019 PLoS Biology article. The updated database from 2020 also included the names of people within the top-cited 2% of their scientific discipline. This increased the number of forensic practitioners to 215 from a total of 10,158 individuals in this subject category. This article takes a closer look at these highly cited forensic scientists, the countries where they work, the particular research field in which they publish, and their composite citation scores with and without self-citations. The top ten most cited individuals in both databases (2019 and 2020) were the same and these should therefore be considered an elite group among all forensic practitioners.

Highly cited papers in dental medicine based on essential science indicators

Introduction/Aim. Essential Science Indicators (ESI) Highly Cited Papers (HCPs) refer to the most influential scientific articles and breakthrough research within a research field in the past decade. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of ESI HCPs in the subject category Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, to recognize authors, institutions and countries of origin, and determine research trends that attracted the most scientific interest in dentistry. Methods. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, network extraction and visualization were completed. Furthermore, analyzed ESI HCPs were classified according to a field of interest, main research domain, type of study, and level of evidence. Results. The set of 185 dental HCPs was published in 42 journals from 2010 to 2020, with an average number of 211.7 citations per paper. Nearly half of HCPs were issued by the Journal of Dental Research, Dental Materials, and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. There were 765 authors affiliated with 351 institutions from 42 countries. The most productive institutions were the University of Hong Kong, the University of Michigan, and the University of Bern. The USA contributed with the highest number of publications, followed by China, and the United Kingdom. Dental Materials, Dental Implantology, Periodontology, and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery represented areas of significant interest within this subject category. The highest proportion of HCPs were narrative and systematic reviews, expert opinions, consensus reports, and in vitro /lab studies. Conclusion. Results obtained from this study can provide valuable information for researchers to better identify present and future hotspots in dental research.

Global Research on DNA methylation from 2000 to 2019: Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization

Introduction:DNA methylation is the most common epigenetic feature in human somatic cells, it has played a crucial role in regulating related genes and diagnosing cancer. However, few studies used bibliometric method to systematically analyze the development of DNA methylation. The purpose of this study was to systematically analyze the trends of DNA methylation research from 2000 to 2019. Methods:The published studies were searched between January, 2000 and December 31st, 2019 in the Web of Science. We only included peer-reviewed reviews and articles. The language was limited to English, and no species limitations were specified. A total of 11,127 publications met the inclusion criteria. CiteSpace V was used to analyze the trends of DNA methylation research. Results:The results showed the publications had a statistical increase over time in the DNA methylation research(P<0.005) by linear regression analyses. USA had the largest number of published papers (4263). Plos One contributed to the most publications (4.52%). The most prolific institution is Chinese Acad Sci (237). In accordance with subject categories of Web of Science, Genetics Heredity subject category had the largest number of publications (2,516) and citations (119,113). Biochemistry Molecular Biology subject category had the highest number of H-index (154). On the basis of the co-citation map of references, the “specific dna methylation” was labeled as the largest cluster. Most recent burst keywords were as follows: “pregnancy” (2017~2019), “obesity” (2017~2019), “growth” (2017~2019). Conclusions: This study provides useful information for DNA methylation researchers to find fresh viewpoints related to collaborators, cooperative institutions, popular topics. It also reminds us to pay attention to some new research trends.