Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From care for the environment to care for the young and elderly, from mental health care to humanitarian care, from care understood as an obligation, as a gift, or as an affect, from the intimacy of care among loved ones, to the work of care giving in institutional settings, to the responsibility to care for those one does not know, the notion of ‘care’ encompasses a proliferating field of diverse relations. The question of care presents a central ethical and political challenge that is bound up with the increasing regulation and management of care relations by governmental institutions as well as its privatization, quantification, and commodification on the global market. As a result, certain kinds of care – for certain people, animals, things, or the environment – are dismissed or ignored in the name of ostensibly more urgent, more practical, and often more profitable concerns. To ask <i>Why care?</i> is to critically explore the massive mobilization of care in modern life. It is to interrogate the biopolitical ambivalences of the modern institutionalization of care as well as the prevailing economies and economics of care regarding what counts as care, the value of care, and its differential allocation. The question <i>Why care?</i> also provides occasion to attend to alternative or ignored forms of care – and to reflect on how these might be made explicit by means of new forms of critique and intersectional analysis based on diverse alternative notions of community and interdependence. Rather than idealizing certain kinds of care, the symposium makes time for care as an affective and communal practice in our more than human worlds in which relations of inclusion and exclusion, empowerment and debilitation, autonomy and dependence, tenderness and terrorization are not only constituted but also contested. The symposium seeks to better understand prevailing regimes of care and explore under-represented or unacknowledged practices of care in the past and present.19:30 Keynote Lisa Baraitser (Birkbeck, University of London)<br> On Time, Care and Not Moving On9:45 Morning Coffee 10:00-10:15 Introductions 10:15-11:45 Panel I – Waiting Times Lisa Baraitser (Birkbeck, University of London) and Laura Salisbury (University of Exeter): Depressing Time: Waiting, Melancholia, and the Psychoanalytic Practice of Care<br> Deborah Robinson (University of Plymouth, artist collaborator)<br> Raluca Soreanu (Birkbeck, University of London): Ferenczi’s Times: The Tangent, the Segment, and the Meandering Line<br> Martin Moore (University of Exeter): What did it mean to wait in the Early UK National Health Service? 11:45-12:15 Coffee Break 12:15-13:00 Panel II – Curating Taraneh Fazeli (Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts, Omaha): An Interview with Taraneh Fazeli<br> Magdalena Jadwiga Härtelova (Gallery of Academy of Fine Arts in Prague): Care ~ Curating 13:00-14:15 Lunch Break 14:15-15:45 Panel III – Careful Reading John Hamilton (Harvard University): Homo Curans<br> Kasia Mika (KITLV, Leiden): <i>Rasanblaj</i>: A Future Reassembled<br> Laura Salisbury (University of Exeter): Slow Modernism and Careful Reading<br> Benjamin Lewis Robinson (University of Vienna): <em>Frivole</em>: Why Care About Coetzee’s Slow Man? 15:45-16:15 Coffee Break 16:15-16:45 Intervention – Anton Kats 16:45-17:00 Coffee Break 17:00-18:30 Panel IV – Decolonial Healing Daniela Agostinho (University of Copenhagen): Archival Encounters: Ethics of Care and Postcolonial Digital Archives<br> Kateřina Kolářová (Charles University, Prague): Post-socialism, Affective Politics of Abandonment and Racialised Chronicity<br> Vasuki Shanmuganathan (York University, Canada): Aging Colonizers, Cultural Care, and Race 18:45-19:30 Performance – The Battlefield Nurse by Jeremy Wade
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».