Raising aluminum foil fists: how to speak about anger in transplant medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dominant narratives of solid-organ transplantation foreground vocabularies of gratitude. Solid-organ transplantation is often celebrated in biomedicine for its high-tech innovation and specialization. But transplantation also includes the organizations that oversee the distribution of donated organs to potential recipients who disproportionately outnumber available organs. Wait-listing for transplant weighs urgency and fitness for transplant against availability, as individuals must simultaneously demonstrate that their conditions are severe enough to warrant transplantation while also showing they are well enough to withstand the transplant procedure that is meant to return the individual from critical illness to able-bodied health. This article considers how promises of cure make affective demands on transplant recipients. Dominant transplantation narratives and metaphors frame transplantation as "rebirth" and the "gift of life." But this framework constrains transplant recipients' affective and emotional repertoires, positioning gratitude as the primary-if not only-acceptable feeling for performing that the "gift of life" was deserved. Such narrowly sanctioned possibilities for expression elide the affective complexities of transplant recipients' experiences and foreclose opportunities for expressing anger and frustration. This paper unpacks the politics of verbalizing anger among solid-organ transplant recipients at an urban North American hospital. Using arts-based sensory ethnographic interviews with 27 participants, this paper draws on affect theory to understand how transplant recipients critique and protest curative imaginaries while also upholding them. Theorizations from Critical Disability Studies provide generative ways to question negative feelings and more fully understand recipients' experiences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".