MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112789010 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v9i2.629

Tricky Ticks and Vegan Quips: The Lone Star Tick and Logics of Debility

2020· article· en· W3112789010 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joshua Falek, Cameron Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebilityTickSociologyGender studiesPsychoanalysisPsychologyEcologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we explore the discourse around the Lone Star tick, predominately through the platform of Twitter, in order to highlight the way the tick is imagined as a potential tool for increasing veganism, as the Lone Star tick’s bite has been found to cause allergies to a carbohydrate found in red meat. In particular, the article questions why the notion of tick-as- vegan-technology is so widespread and easily called forward. In order to explain this pattern, we turn to Sunaura Taylor’s monograph, Beasts of Burden and Jasbir Puar’s notion of debility. Taylor’s monograph provides a framework for analyzing the imbrications of power between ableism and speciesism. Puar’s debility helps articulate how the imagination of widespread red meat allergies is an imagination of decapacitation. Puar’s analysis of the invisibilizing of debility also helps reveal how both ticks and humans are debilitated and instrumentalized in this articulated fantasy. We argue that the governance impulse in these discourses reflect a continued alignment with biopolitical forces that always designate some lives as worthy of care and others as useable, which is fundamentally at odds with broader goals of animal liberation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.056
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207