Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a mark of gratitude to Alexander Leighton, this article engages him in a dialogue, reopening several debates that were enriched by his research and reflections on ethics, the 'aesthetic dimension' of the research enterprise, the processes that mediate between collective and individual variables, and his strong distrust of theory. The authors discuss some of the features of Leighton's perspective that they have retained and transformed in their own work on community responses to chronic mental illness in rural Quebec, on the course of schizophrenia in India, and on culture and psychosis in clinical settings in Montreal. The challenge remains the one that Leighton identified: how can findings derived from different disciplines be made to co-ordinate? The authors argue that this question must be answered from within the centre of each discipline rather than from their frontiers or zones of interface.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".