Bibliographic record
Abstract
Written as a fictitious dialogue between two of this generation’s most prolific social theorists, this unique analysis explores the similarities and divergences of Michel Foucault’s and Yannick Ripa’s scholarship on madness. During an imagined meeting at a local café, a spirited dialogue emerges addressing mutual agreement and unwavering criticism of each author’s perspective of how madness was constructed and managed throughout the classical and Victorian eras. Ripa’s primary motive is to challenge Foucault for ignoring the feminine critique within his over-arching theories of social and patriarchal systems of control. On the other hand, Foucault’s vested interest is to explore Ripa’s narrowed historical scope that he feels was essentially built upon his own scholarship without acknowledgement. Drawing upon a comparative study of Foucault’s History of Madness and Ripa’s Women and Madness, the two theorists engage in a revealing conversation about aspects of political economy, shifting roles of religious ideology, gender effects, the social construction of insanity, and the historical methods of 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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".