Intimate Labour and Social Justice: Engaging with the Work of Rhacel Salazar Parreñas (Dispatch)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although work and care have received substantial attention from academics and activists, and so have bodily exchanges for the purposes of remediating injury or illness and providing for reproductive needs, it has only been recently that the intersections of care, labour and bodily exchanges have been addressed.Rhacel Salazar Parreñas' understanding of intimate labour was formative in understanding the intersections of bodies, labour, care and social justice in the Consuming Intimacies symposium, which explored care work and social reproduction, reproductive labour, and the role of affect and care in exchanges of bodily tissues, fluids, and organs.Parreñas' work was integral to the conceptualization of the symposium and this special issue, and she participated as a keynote speaker and conference attendee.I have long been familiar with Parreñas' work, and over the course of the symposium and afterward, I reflected extensively on the role played by the concept of intimate labour on the development of the Consuming Intimacies project and the impact of Parreñas' work on my research on breastfeeding as care work and emerging transnational markets in breast milk.Recognizing the important role intimate labour plays in connecting the often divided fields of work and care, in this brief reflection I draw on an interview I conducted with Parreñas, our conversations throughout the conference, her work, and her keynote address to identify what it means for scholars to work on social justice, and to share thoughts on future opportunities for social justice work on intimate labour.Drawing on our mutual interest in Foucault's understanding of technologies of the self, I examine how our work on
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".