Disrupting dehumanising and intersecting patterns of modernity with a relational ethic of caring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This article describes two dehumanising patterns associated with modern culture and their consequences of stigma and suffering for persons living with dementia: the increasing division, judgment and exclusion of persons based on difference, disability, and undesirability; and the increasing attention to management and control, and their links with ageism, healthism and consumerism. These patterns have been established in media, policies, discourses and care practices, and have profound and harmful consequences for persons living with dementia. \nAim: Inspired by philosophers Foster and Foucault, we examine societal patterns that intensify stigma and suffering for persons living with dementia through a critical lens. We then turn to a relational model of citizenship in order to advance an alternative care ethic. Subsequently, we provide examples for relational practices and legacies that model a relational care ethic and thereby disrupt the harmful patterns of modern culture. \nConclusion: This article argues that relational practices that foster relational citizenship and relational caring create a more humane world for persons living with memory loss. \nImplications for practice development: Longstanding concerns about stigmatising attitudes and inhumane care practices have prompted urgent calls for culture change in dementia and long-term care. Most recently, researchers and professionals have emphasised the relational nature of caring and advocate for the adoption of relational caring practices. This article critiques the harmful patterns of modern culture that threaten the quality of care and quality of life, and offers relational practice possibilities for enhancing care and life quality, and honouring the full citizenship of persons living with dementia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".