Opening Closed Doors and Breaching High Walls: Some Approaches for Studying Intellectual Disability in Canadian History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians who have studied mental illness and intellectual disability have tended to focus, with some notable exceptions, on institutions and those who administered them, rather than on patients and their families. This emphasis on the asylum has given it a disproportionate place in the history of intellectual disability and mental illness. A number of possible paths are open to historians in adding the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities to the historical record. Some individuals with intellectual disabilities can be enabled to tell their own stories, or at least to provide some insight into their motivations and experiences. As well, many paths of investigation that may start within the confining walls of the asylum offer historians a chance to piece together the lives of people with intellectual disabilities outside the institutions built for their care and incarceration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.078 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".