Negotiating Care: Living Arrangements and Adults with Cognitive Disabilities in South Brazil1,2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted Living for adults with disabilities is a recent subject inboth Brazilian legislation and public debates. Although stillstigmatized by the idea that those who seek different livingarrangements for their children would be abandoning them, the concernwith both the autonomy of people with disabilities and the well-beingof the caregivers has prompted this theme to gain force in public andprivate spheres. Drawing from an ethnographic work with mothers ofadults with cognitive disabilitiesy from Porto Alegre, Brazil, whoconstituted a group to demand governmental action regarding assistedliving facilities, I propose a reflection on how such plea enables afurther discussion on the way disability and care are enacted. I arguethat by thinking of their trajectories through the care practices theyentail, one can track the moralities surrounding their experience ofmotherhood and how they are telling of the way disability is dealt within this specific time and place. Situating their claim within broaderdebates on institutionalization, I stress how their plea cannot beunderstood without a critical stand on ableism and the invisibility anddevaluation of care work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".