Bibliographic record
Abstract
Care is complex: something that must be thoughtfully evoked; that is not necessarily comfortable; that is humbling, vulnerable, and negotiated. Examining the stakes of care in participatory performance, this article traces lines of inquiry around care as labour, as duty, as risk, as choice, as participation, and as an exchange of power requiring consent. Reflecting on the precarity and interdependence of participatory performance, I argue this genre is not only uniquely positioned to foster reciprocal care—it requires it. I outline a model of reciprocal care, defining it as the act of all participants attending to something together—in this case the performance—and collectively creating the conditions of coexistence necessary for this tending. To make these ideas tangible, I refer to two participatory performances I directed. Trophy is a performance installation featuring local community members sharing personal stories of change, housed in glowing tents that transform over the course of the performance. The second, Remixed, is a hybrid deep listening experience, accessed via a progressive web app, that contemplates how we instigate change in our lives, communities, and world. Both productions are tentative experiments in reciprocal care, extending its duty beyond the artist and exploring the conditions through which it is sustained by all participants. I conclude by envisioning the possibilities of reciprocal care as a vital way to operate in the uneven precarity that is our standard collective condition and to be in the unknown together.
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 | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".