Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a contemporary context in which many individuals and groups feel under-valued and uncared for, Habits of Care addresses the links between the care of the self and collective care, asking where they overlap, and where they diverge and conflict. Recalling the etymological roots of the word ‘curating’ in the Latin word for ‘caring,’ the exhibition is prompted by concerns with how the rhetoric of care plays out in the fields of art, culture and beyond. It points to where care is typically invested, and where it falls short, raising questions about how we might develop new habits of care that encompass both human and non-human others. Participating artists were: Lisa Busby Claire Fontaine Deborah Ligorio Paul Maheke Raju Rage Amie Siegel Laura Yuile The exhibition spanned the two Blackwood Gallery spaces. In the University's lobby it featured a lightbox work (Untitled) Rust/Tears, by Claire Fontaine. Paul Maheke and Laura Yuile performed as part of the opening reception. Raju Rage's participation took the form of a remote Skype performance, Yeah but can we listen tho?, during Care Crisis, Care Connective: An Open Forum on Cultural Work, at the University of Toronto, Mississauga. Also presenting at the Care Crisis, Care Connective forum were participants in a workshop on Curating and Caring, led by Helena Reckitt in collaboration with the Blackwood Gallery staff. They presented New Propositions for Curating With Care that they had collectively developed during two previous meetings of the Workshop. The Element Choir performed Protocols, Policies, and Proposals Performed at several times and on different sites throughout the University of Toronto's Mississauga campus. The performance was based on scores composed by Lisa Busby which in turn drew on materials documenting efforts to improve care in the cultural sector. Gathered by Helena Reckitt and Christine Shaw, these documents were exhibited in the Blackwood Gallery in tandem with Busby's scorebooks.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".