MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111298206 · doi:10.3138/topia-016

States of Emergency and the <i>Muselmann</i> in Long-Term Care Homes

2020· article· en· W3111298206 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eve Haque

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState of emergencyLong-term careTerm (time)Relation (database)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)State (computer science)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSociologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceGeographyMedicineLawNursingEconomicsVirologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, 84% of COVID-19 related deaths have been in long-term care (LTC) homes, making the proportion of Canadian COVID-19 deaths double the average of all other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to date. This paper attempts to examine how such a devastating proportion of LTC residents could have become the victims of the virus in a country which openly proclaims to have successfully flattened the curve of the virus. This paper examines this question by drawing on Agamben’s figure of the Muselmann and his thinking about the relation between the state of exception to the rule; specifically, how each secretly institutes each other. In particular, Thobani’s and Weheliye’s rethinkings of the Muselmann as the site of racialized logics and assemblages are mobilized to illuminate the techniques used to script the bodies of these LTC residents as bare life so their suffering and deaths come be seen as natural and expected in an ever-extending state of emergency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.051
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207