“We all carry each other, sometimes”: care-sharing as social justice practice in integrated dance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore how one integrated dance community engages in everyday practices of care-sharing as a form of social justice. The notion of care-sharing emerged from a performance ethnography in which 12 dancers co-created a research-based integrated dance. For this community, integrated dance is a recreational and pre-professional art practice that is inclusive of people with a wide range of embodiments and capacities, including those experiencing disability. Within this dance context, disability is not regarded as a bodily problem in need of therapy, but as a matter of social injustice. To navigate these and other forms of social injustice, dancers practised care-sharing, which involved: life-sustaining, communal acts of radical interdependence; practices of consensus-building and the sharing of discomfort; and a commitment to negotiating complex power relations. We conclude by sharing some points of learning, hoping that they may offer new perspectives on therapeutic recreation research and practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".