Response to Joel Michael Reynolds, The Life Worth Living: Disability, Pain, and Morality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Life Worth Living is particularly valuable for its phenomenological approach to disability and pain, which can serve to draw attention to their complexity and multifacetedness, and allows attention to the interweaving of components of experience—embodied, social, relational, and so on. It also points out the ways in which abilities are relational and contextual, and that we depend on a range of caring systems as part of our human being-in-the-world (14). The book’s final chapter and conclusion highlight the role of community, relationship, and care in making “habitable worlds for all” (160). My comments take up Reynolds’s discussion of living with pain and will mostly draw from chapter 2, “A Phenomenology of Chronic Pain.” I then turn to the broader context of reading this book amidst an ongoing pandemic and climate crisis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.066 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".