Embodied Abolition: A care-centered approach to changing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a reflection on my master’s research project event Embodied Abolition, which was held virtually on April 9th, 2022, in Toronto. The research project was a full day event which brought together Canada-based artists, activists and healers working within abolition frameworks, as well as individuals with lived experience of incarceration and/or the criminal justice system. My research was guided and summarized by the following question: how do we build care-centered justice systems through a process of embodied abolition? Through community based participatory research, the event, and this paper, was informed by theories of transformative justice, community accountability, radical imagination (Kelley, 2003), pleasure activism (Brown, 2019), ethical relationality (Donaldson, 2016) and the practice of somatics and Somatic Abolition (Menakem, 2020). In addition, it engaged with a rich genealogy and epistemology of abolition and community centered care-making led by queer, trans, Black, Indigenous and People of colour across North America. What the Embodied Abolition event offered was a uniquely Canadian lens to abolition organizing by highlighting the works of panelists working within Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. The panelists offered perspectives on abolition which intersected with land back movements, decolonization, disability justice, Indigenous teachings, and trans and Black experience of the Canadian justice system. The event findings highlighted a few key themes as crucial in the praxis of abolition and building of a care-based justice system. These themes were: self-determined healing, radical and loving reciprocity and relations which invite all into the conversation, and centering of voices of those with lived experience of the criminal justice system. This paper further explores these themes and connects them to the broader body of work and experiences within abolition.
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 | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".