(W)righting women: constructions of gender, sexuality and race in the psychiatric chart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the interpretative nature of psychiatry in relation to gender, sexuality and race within the particular time and place of one urban, Canadian, clinical psychiatric setting. We bring women's psychiatric inpatient charts and a critical feminist perspective into dialogue in an effort to focus on gender, sexuality and race in psychiatric narratives on women's madness. The research used a qualitative, retrospective research design to examine the psychiatric narrative as a technique of power as it operates on women. This paper focuses on the overarching theme of 'medicalisation', identified from the analysis of women's psychiatric inpatient charts, including two subthemes: (1) language and composition and (2) decontextualisation. Our analysis suggests that psychiatric chart documentation practices that reproduce gendered, sexualised, and racialised biases and assumptions and decontextualise the social and structural context of women's experiences of madness serve to create the paradox of women's visibility/erasure in psychiatric charts. The paper concludes with an exploration of the significance of women's authorship legitimacy in psychiatric chart documentation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".