Doing agoraphobia(s): a material‐discursive understanding of diseased bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper draws on a reading of selected English‐language case reports of agoraphobia that are representative of the medical literature written between 1871 and 1930. This reading demonstrates how agoraphobic bodies were materialised through a mutual engagement between practices associated with diagnosing agoraphobia, specifically the writing and publishing of case histories, and the reiteration of normative cultural categories implicit within them. Locating the discussion in the specific case of agoraphobia, the paper analyses the concept of disease, not only in terms of its social construction, but also in terms of its materialisation, thereby illuminating the socio‐cultural process of embodiment as one that unfolds in and through (disease) categories. Seeking to transcend current theoretical debates that demand a choice either between a material or a discursive explanation of medical phenomena, the body is thereby conceptualised beyond Foucault's subject‐object as an intra‐action between the material and the discursive, whilst retaining his key insights into the power relations inherent in the clinical gaze.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".