Making ‘care’ accessible: Personal assistance for disabled people and the politics of language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability scholars and activists argue that ‘care’ is a complex form of oppression and reject it as a term and concept. I explore the possibility of salvaging care from its oppressive medical and charitable legacies through a discussion of personal assistance. While not arguing for a return to terming personal assistance ‘care’, I argue care can be made accessible in policies and discussions of attendant services and in more general discussions related to care. Like the built environment, care requires ‘retrofitting’ as in updating existing structures to fully include disability perspectives. This requires redefining care as a complex tension. Accessibility also evokes the sense of ‘at hand’; keeping care at hand in policy discussions allows us to consider transformative feminist conceptualizations of care and captures intricate relationships between attendants and disabled people, including people with intellectual disabilities. Most importantly, accessible versions of care always acknowledge the oppressive legacies and coercive potentials of care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it