Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the relationship of care and crisis is discussed with respect to tipping points and strategic mobilizations of the concept by climate communicators including scientists, policymakers, and activists. The displacement of care in our conceptions of crisis is evident during key moments of intermediation for the tipping point concept, a series of historical developments usually bracketed off in stories about the onset of climate change as a public concern. These moments include the use of broken windows and bystander invention theories to popularize the tipping point concept. These displacements have been generalized across a range of sites including academic research into bystander inaction during emergencies, the network design of online spaces, and climate communication strategies. By bringing recent work by Chun and Rentschler together with Pezzullo’s provocation to expand considerations of care in the field, I encourage historically-informed engagements with care-based traditions, knowledges, and practices currently displaced in climate communication.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".