The Risks of Care: What Is at Stake in Letting in the Context of Care and Dementia in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia care has been described in the literature as mostly burdensome, sometimes rewarding, but usually is framed as not involving parties beyond the individual, her family, and/or paid eldercare workers. The aim of this session is to widen the gaze on dementia care, while foregrounding uncertainty, complexity and variability -- around the “truth” of what dementia is, and around “responsibility” for care. On the one hand, we seek to situate dementia within broader local landscapes of care, including legal frameworks, social welfare and health systems, and more-than-human environments. Borrowing from Ciara Kierans the term “regimes of care,” this panel highlights how dementia care arrangements draw together publicly funded and/or private sector institutions, “kinship and friendship networks, charitable associations, and civil society organizations [in ways] that cannot be specified in advance.” (Panel 1) On the other hand, we seek to attend to the variability and complexity of dementia itself -- this historically uncertain category that historian of medicine Lara Keuck called a “working title,” because of its constantly shifting meaning and the doubt that surrounds dementia over time (and, we would add, across contexts). We approach dementia, in other words, as a site of onto-epistemological diversity • which manifests also in diverse needs for and practices of care. (Panel 2) How are such “regimes of dementia care” lived and performed? How do people work to cobble together care out of contingent, locally specific, often incoherent and fragile assemblages? This panel explores the multiplicity of dementia care regimes addressing a multiplicity of dementias, across a range of distinct settings. Keuck, Lara. 2021. “A Window to Act? Revisiting the Conceptual Foundations of Alzheimer’s Disease in Dementia Prevention,” In: Preventing Dementia? Critical perspectives on a new paradigm of preparing for old age. A. Leibing and S. Schicktanz (eds.). New York/Oxford: Berghahn. Kierans, Ciara. 2019. Chronic Failures: Kidneys, Regimes of Care, and the Mexican State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".