MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485742611 · doi:10.25071/1918-6215.31564

RACE AND MADNESS: LOCATING THE EXPERIENCES OF RACIALIZED PEOPLE WITH PSYCHIATRIC HISTORIES IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

2011· article· en· W1485742611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadia Kanani

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Disability Discourses · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)PsychiatryGerontologyCriminologyPsychologySociologyGender studiesMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intersectional social construction of race and madness has significantly shaped the lived experiences of racialized people with psychiatric histories. Unfortunately, there are few studies that consider the intersections between race and madness, and fewer still that locate these intersections within the social and political contexts of colonization, Canadian and American settler states, and immigration. The primary purpose of this article is to provide a review of the literature that looks at the intersections of race and madness in Canada and the US. In particular, the author will highlight common themes that are articulated in this literature. The second goal of this article is to locate the experiences of racialized people with psychiatric histories within the socio-historical context from which they arise. The author will argue that race and madness have been mutually socially constructed in Canadian and American society. Further, the author will illustrate that psychiatric constructions of racialized people have allowed for the rationalization and justification of both historical and ongoing colonial and imperialist domination, slavery, and exclusionary immigration policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0520.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Disability DiscoursesSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207