The Ethics of Care: Moral Knowledge, Communication, and the Art of Caregiving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alan Blum and Stuart J. Murray’s 2017 volume, The Ethics of Care, may seem an odd title to review in the Canadian Journal of Communication. More than a contribution to research on caregiving for those who work in the field or a text for those who view health communication through a narrow lens that only considers interpersonal communication around death, The Ethics of Care challenges readers from a variety of backgrounds to consider what is at stake regarding communication at the end of life. These stakes are important for each of us, of course, and not only because the end of life is a certainty we all face, but also because, as a problem for communication and culture, end-of-life tensions reveal a lot about the institutions and structures of care; how informed consent is defined and articulated; who has the power to represent and communicate the end of life for whom; how the end of life is represented in media and elsewhere and with what effects; and so on. The Ethics of Care may seem to be a cluster of disparate chapters addressing the end of life, but Blum and Murray weave them together masterfully with the Introduction and Afterword in order to show how critical perspectives of institutions, ethics, and care can come together to inform health communication. They also touch on a perspective that Charlene Elliot (2014) has called “communication and health,” which asks what tools a distinctly communication approach might contribute to thinking about health topics. The Ethics of Care opens the door to exploring how a communication perspective can supplement and come into conversation with other disciplines that focus on end-of-life care. In this, the book is quite instructive.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".