Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the potential of regarding care as a constitutional issue, rather than addressing it solely through legislation, the family, or the market. It is argued that care is best regarded as a constitutional value, reflecting the reality of our interdependence, and functioning as a crucial counterweight to the fiction that individual freedom can be constituted independently of our social relations. Care as a constitutional value should be regarded as complementing express constitutional commitments to freedom, dignity, and equality, recognizing that relationships are constitutive of the self, and that individuals are partly constituted by society. Just as freedom, dignity, and equality perform important expressive functions in a constitution, so the recognition of care, implicit or explicit, signals the foundational importance of care to everyone throughout our lives and to society’s ability to reproduce itself. Care as a constitutional value should permeate the interpretation of constitutional and other provisions, and enhance accountability for care-related decisions, encouraging decision-makers to pay attention to care, and prompting courts to interpret constitutional and legislative measures with the value of care in mind. In this way, the gaps in welfare law, labor law, and free market regulation can be addressed to face the challenges of care. Equally importantly, care as a constitutional value can act as a catalyst for political activism, legitimizing grassroots campaigns for better recognition of care. This article is normative and exploratory. At the same time, its propositions are tested against constitutional jurisprudence in India, South Africa, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".