MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549480545 · doi:10.1080/15228932.2011.537584

Is Insanity a Demeaning Defense? Examining the Ethics of Offender Pathologization through the Lens of the Classics

2011· article· en· W1549480545 on OpenAlexaff
Annalise Acorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Psychology Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourInsanityPunishment (psychology)HAMLET (protein complex)Insanity defenseFace (sociological concept)Economic JusticePsychologyCriminologyPhysiognomyPsychoanalysisCriminal justiceLawSociologyLiteratureSocial psychologyArtPolitical sciencePsychiatrySocial scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the question: is the insanity defence demeaning to the accused and if it is how should actors in the criminal justice system, defence counsel in particular, take into consideration the self-respect interest of the accused in advising on which defence to advance at trial? To explore this question I draw on two literary texts which show the defence as demeaning: Don Quixote de la Mancha by Cervantes and Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky as well as two texts which show insanity as an honour or face-saving defence: Homer's Iliad and Shakespeare's Hamlet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic Psychology PracticeSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207