Examining young people’s body experiences in the caring space and in their images and digital practices: A case study of L’Arche community homes in Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To consider how the digital generation experiences and presents the body, we examine two opposed spaces that present the body: the “caring space” in situ and the “digital space.” For an example of the caring space, we chose the L’Arche community, where people with intellectual disabilities and assistants live together in a house and share everyday life. Specifically, we examine the L’Arche community in Japan and its website. In addition to the fieldwork we regularly conducted there beginning in 2012, we also refer to other fieldwork conducted in four communities in the West. We also examine a student’s dissertation on her experience as an assistant in a L’Arche home. Among the theories of space used, we refer to Edward T. Hall’s theory of proxemics and to three keywords: “belonging,” the foundation of the philosophy of Jean Vanier (the founder of L’Arche); “In-Place,” the foundation of Milton Mayeroff’s studies on “caring”; and Hannah Arendt’s “space of appearance.” In the conclusion, we highlight the notions of the “uncontrolled” body and the body “at will.”
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".