Proceeding From Our Roots in the Dust: An Unfolding Ethics of Care Through the Arts (Étendre nos racines dans la poussière : une éthique des soins qui se déploie à travers les arts)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This theoretical essay invites a reimagining of ethics in art therapy, and a questioning of the reverence of ethical codes and standards in the care professions as universally beneficial. It explores how one may practice care work without replicating systemic violence. I begin exploring these broad quandaries by drawing from partial and situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988 Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This writing is informed by feminist analyses and theorizations of care ethics, and written from my subject position as a racialized cisgender woman working in mental health services and an art therapy training program in Tkaronto1. I begin with a discussion of the discourse of professional ethics and its idealization of masculine rationality and a top-down model of accountability to contemplate why people continue to experience oppressive and unethical treatment within human service systems despite deeply cemented directives to adhere to professional codes of ethics. I argue that it is necessary to center emotions and interdependence in confronting our complicity in oppression. I conclude by contemplating an ethics of foregrounding the arts to hold space for uncertainty, responsibility, and care.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".