Theorizing Health and Illness: Functionalism, Subjectivity and Reflexivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health and illness in contemporary psychology are remarkably undertheorized, with the consequence that implicit definitions of these topics are unquestionably imported into health psychology. Largely inspired and oriented to the medical system, health psychology is often subservient to biomedically inspired theory or directed to solving the problems of the health care system, not those of its patients or those who might ultimately benefit from health knowledge. Qualitative approaches have attempted to reintroduce the voice of the patient/sufferer/individual back into health psychology but without adequate theoretical integration this work has been marginalized and ignored by mainstream health psychology in the service of medical modelling. The point is not to develop a health psychology as an exclusive disciplinary enclave but rather to open up the possibilities of a responsible knowing. Using Kathryn Addelson's work on professional knowing I argue that the collective activity that constitutes health psychology can be made more explicit not only by devising reflexive theories and practices but by focusing on what the outcomes of that activity might be. Functional theories of health and illness, on the other hand, obscure our epistemological and moral commitments.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.151 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".