Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical technologies have intervened on the critical post-natal time and space by augmenting and/or optimizing conditions intended to increase survival. As contested, contextual, and transformative spaces, incubators fulfill particular biological needs while also becoming sites where political realities, human emotion, ritual and symbolism converge upon vulnerability. I explore sociopolitical contexts of vulnerability and protection in global and cross-cultural context, while drawing on prior scholarship in anthropology of motherhood, material culture, as well as feminist and reproductive anthropology. Events in popular culture like the Danish Octo Project and Purple Butterfly Initiative provide insight into lived experience and everyday interactions with incubators and the neonatal intensive care environment. In response to popular assumptions of technological advancements in clinical medicine as apolitical apexes of innovation, we must complicate their technical utility with profoundly human experiences toward and around them. In doing so, we situate and implicate technology in political and discursive narratives and reflect on these objects as more than sums of their parts. This essay contributes to broader discussions about the materiality of medical technologies and their environments, and illuminates new possibilities to examine corollaries of grief, hope, maternalism, memory, and the resilience of human psyches and physiologies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".