Care, politics, and the political: the case of the COVID-19 global pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobilizing a distinction between “politics,” understood as the socio-symbolic reality as it is already acknowledged, and “the political,” which instead has to do with the establishment of a particular social order that delineates what counts as politics in the first place, this article considers the COVID-19 global pandemic to assert that care is not only about politics or doing politics differently. Rather, following the work of Estelle Ferrarese, Tiina Vaittinen, Hanna-Kaisa Hoppania, and Kristin Cloyes, the article highlights three aspects of care that are political in the most robust sense: (1) the ways in which care is always implicated in a social order, (2) the ongoing challenge posed to any order by the vulnerability of our material being, and (3) the agonizing and iterative process of disagreeing over different versions of care. This article then considers these three points in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic to argue that this global health crisis has clearly revealed these aspects of care and to conclude that care is, therefore, undeniably political.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".