Bibliographic record
Abstract
From care for the environment to care for the young and elderly, from mental health care to humanitarian care, from care understood as an obligation, as a gift, or as an affect, from the intimacy of care among loved ones, to the work of care giving in institutional settings, to the responsibility to care for those one does not know, the notion of ‘care’ encompasses a proliferating field of diverse relations. The question of care presents a central ethical and political challenge that is bound up with the increasing regulation and management of care relations by governmental institutions as well as its privatization, quantification, and commodification on the global market. As a result, certain kinds of care – for certain people, animals, things, or the environment – are dismissed or ignored in the name of ostensibly more urgent, more practical, and often more profitable concerns. To ask <i>Why care?</i> is to critically explore the massive mobilization of care in modern life. It is to interrogate the biopolitical ambivalences of the modern institutionalization of care as well as the prevailing economies and economics of care regarding what counts as care, the value of care, and its differential allocation. The question <i>Why care?</i> also provides occasion to attend to alternative or ignored forms of care – and to reflect on how these might be made explicit by means of new forms of critique and intersectional analysis based on diverse alternative notions of community and interdependence. Rather than idealizing certain kinds of care, the symposium makes time for care as an affective and communal practice in our more than human worlds in which relations of inclusion and exclusion, empowerment and debilitation, autonomy and dependence, tenderness and terrorization are not only constituted but also contested. The symposium seeks to better understand prevailing regimes of care and explore under-represented or unacknowledged practices of care in the past and present.19:30 Keynote Lisa Baraitser (Birkbeck, University of London)<br> On Time, Care and Not Moving On9:45 Morning Coffee 10:00-10:15 Introductions 10:15-11:45 Panel I – Waiting Times Lisa Baraitser (Birkbeck, University of London) and Laura Salisbury (University of Exeter): Depressing Time: Waiting, Melancholia, and the Psychoanalytic Practice of Care<br> Deborah Robinson (University of Plymouth, artist collaborator)<br> Raluca Soreanu (Birkbeck, University of London): Ferenczi’s Times: The Tangent, the Segment, and the Meandering Line<br> Martin Moore (University of Exeter): What did it mean to wait in the Early UK National Health Service? 11:45-12:15 Coffee Break 12:15-13:00 Panel II – Curating Taraneh Fazeli (Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts, Omaha): An Interview with Taraneh Fazeli<br> Magdalena Jadwiga Härtelova (Gallery of Academy of Fine Arts in Prague): Care ~ Curating 13:00-14:15 Lunch Break 14:15-15:45 Panel III – Careful Reading John Hamilton (Harvard University): Homo Curans<br> Kasia Mika (KITLV, Leiden): <i>Rasanblaj</i>: A Future Reassembled<br> Laura Salisbury (University of Exeter): Slow Modernism and Careful Reading<br> Benjamin Lewis Robinson (University of Vienna): <em>Frivole</em>: Why Care About Coetzee’s Slow Man? 15:45-16:15 Coffee Break 16:15-16:45 Intervention – Anton Kats 16:45-17:00 Coffee Break 17:00-18:30 Panel IV – Decolonial Healing Daniela Agostinho (University of Copenhagen): Archival Encounters: Ethics of Care and Postcolonial Digital Archives<br> Kateřina Kolářová (Charles University, Prague): Post-socialism, Affective Politics of Abandonment and Racialised Chronicity<br> Vasuki Shanmuganathan (York University, Canada): Aging Colonizers, Cultural Care, and Race 18:45-19:30 Performance – The Battlefield Nurse by Jeremy Wade
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".