Bibliographic record
Abstract
If, as we know, many strategies of care are teleological in nature, cast as a way to ensure the continuation or adaptation of/to the world rather than its radical overthrowing, then how do we think care otherwise? This paper will return to the temporal registers of care as a way of trying to think this through. The tying of cure to care tends to position care as a thoroughly future-oriented practice, one where the telos is the cure of whatever pathology has been identified, a making right of what has been diagnosed as wrong. But if, to modify Adorno, a right life cannot be made in a wrong world, then how can care become detached from a goal or terminus that might motivate it, toward an openness that could point us toward the “end of the world” (Wilderson 2018, 93)? How, in other words, can care be thought of not as in service of a goal, but rather be outside of and beyond what Sexton calls “(the restoration of) sovereignty” (2016, 593)?
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".