Circulating blood: a conversation between Stephanie Sodero and Richard Rackham on vital mobilities in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vital mobilities are goods that impact one’s life chances and that cannot be dematerialized. They must circulate externally in order to allow vital bodily circulations. Blood is a compelling and vital mobile material. It circulates impressive distances internally, within the body, and externally through the practices of donation and transfusion.This interview is organized in three parts. First, we learn about the everyday mobilities entailed in blood between the point of donation and the point of care. Second, we discuss three exceptional events that impacted NHS Blood and Transplant: the Manchester bombing, the London Olympics and the Filton Flood. Finally, we conclude by reflect on how social science might inform a research relationship between academic theorization of vital mobilities, which centres on the question, “How do move things when it really matter?” and the applied work of NHS Blood and Transplant.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".