MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579155433

Critiquing the "Psychiatric Paradigm" Revisited: Reflections on Feminist Interventions in Mental Health

2007· article· en· W1579155433 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marina Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSexual abusePsychologyDomestic violenceSociologyGender studiesCriminologyPoison controlPsychiatrySuicide preventionMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I still remember my first meeting with Jeri Wine. It was the fall of 1986 and I was visiting Toronto from the west coast. The notion of going to graduate school had just begun to take form in my mind and I was in Toronto to investigate what was reputed to be a fabulous feminist program in Community Psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. In Vancouver I had recently completed a degree in Psychology and simultaneously had become involved in feminist anti-violence activism working for the WAVAW Rape Crisis Centre. The gap between what I was learning in my classes at the university and the stories I heard from women at the other end of the crisis line about their experiences of violence disturbed and troubled me. So many of these women had stories about how they had been disbelieved by mental health professionals when they had disclosed experiences of sexual and physical abuse. Others, who were clearly having reactions to the trauma they had experienced, appeared to have been misdiagnosed as mentally ill. On occasion, women had mental health problems that pre-existed experiences of violence or which made them more vulnerable to abuse. Violence was not the only thing that marked many of these women's lives - poverty and experiences of racism and homophobia were also evident. I asked myself, how could the material I was learning in my upper level psychology classes be so far removed from the actual lives and experiences of women? More specifically how could the discipline of psychology proceed as though social differences like gender, race, sexual orientation and class were inconsequential variables only mentioned occasionally or relegated to small separate sections in one or two of our psychology texts? Several distinct memories come to mind: a social psychology class where we are told that men experience more violence and crime than women and where the subject of intimate violence is never broached; a class on clinical psychology where sex and race differences related to psychiatric diagnosis are never mentioned much less interrogated for their meanings; a class on the history of psychology where Freud's sexist ideas about women's bodies and sexuality are presented as quaint and outmoded but never discussed in relation to the unwitting legacy he left regarding the massive denial of the role that childhood sexual abuse plays in the lives of women. One welcome departure from this was the lone course on the psychology of sex differences where those of us who suspected that gender, race, sexuality and social positioning were relevant to one's psychological development and one's experience of illness gathered. It was in this class that I began to suspect more ominously that the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology were not always the concerned helping professions they purported to be and were not based on objective science but rather contained deeply held biases that often led them to function in ways that perpetuated social inequity. This deepening realization caused me to abandon my original plans to become a clinical psychologist and I might well have become a full time activist and advocate for women, except for the nagging sense that crisis work, however grounded in women's experiences, would never allow the reflection required to more fully understand the complex social issues I was now grappling with. I was left searching for a graduate program that might allow for a critical discussion of the ways in which women and men's lives are not just biologically and psychologically, but also socially, determined. It was this that led me to Jeri Wine's office on that crisp fall day and it was in her office that I began to realize that there were individuals who had dedicated their lives and careers to critically appraising the ways in which the psychological professions have pathologized women. Jeri, I soon discovered, was one of those unique individuals. The first gift she gave me was to validate my disquiet concerning the disjuncture between what I had been taught in psychology at university and the experiences of women that I witnessed during my time as a rape crisis worker. …

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0370.108
Scholarly communication0.0200.027
Open science0.0080.024
Research integrity0.0330.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207