Orphan love in the age of capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, who is to be served by institutions of care and to what ends becomes a pressing matter of concern. Foucault has suggested that the capitalist regime of rule in the twentieth century deployed residential settings as disciplinary apparatuses for shaping subjects to its colonial and industrial interests. However, in the twenty-first century, Deleuze has proposed that it is no longer discipline that is of primary concern for capitalism, but control through an ever-proliferating system of abstract code. It is within this context that terms, such as care within institutional residential encounters, open themselves to the necessity of interrogation. This paper will argue that residential care is a field of encounter saturated with a complex and intricate array of affects. If the rule of capitalism is designed to abstract lived experience, then any affirmation of the corporeal experience of encounter as lived experience might well constitute an alternative affirmation of life and hence a revolutionary set of possibilities. This paper will argue that it is love as creative desire that holds the most powerful possibilities for affirming the lived encounter to be found in residential 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".