The Patient’s Turn Roy Porter and Psychiatry’s Tales, Thirty Years on
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Patient's Turn Roy Porter and Psychiatry's Tales, Thirty Years on Yes, I am ill.But you know dozens, hundreds of madmen are walking about in freedom because your ignorance is incapable of distinguishing them from the sane.Why am I and these poor wretches to be shut up here like scapegoats for all the rest?You, your assistant, the superintendent, and all your hospital rabble, are immeasurably inferior to every one of us morally; why then are we shut up and you not?This past year marked the thirtieth anniversary of Roy Porter's seminal 1985 article, 'The Patient's View: Doing Medical History from Below'. 1 Few works in the history of medicine have received so enthusiastic a reception.Porter's call to reclaim the voice of the voiceless has had an extraordinary echo, becoming not only a necessary reference but also a classic trope.This is especially the case among historians of psychiatry.In a field where patient narratives have long formed their own subgenre, shedding light on these hitherto unheard stories taps into popular fantasies probed by Porter himself -images of gothic madhouses and their gloomy inhabitants; whispers and cries; dark corridors encased in windowless walls, their interiors mirroring the mind gone astray. 2 So ubiquitous is this imagined space that some have recently proposed to create an independent research area dedicated to 'Mad Studies'.3 Fetishised, mythicised, ostracised, the psychiatric patient has emerged as an unlikely protagonist, capturing the scholarly, cultural and artistic imagination alike.Yet recent assessments suggest that Porter's call has not fully been heard.The history of the patient remains 'curiously underwritten' in several areas, some have claimed.4 The authors would like to thank Stephen T. Casper and Mark S. Micale for their insightful comments on this article.Earlier versions of this piece were presented by the first author at the Psychiatry and Culture in Historical Perspective Working Group (Yale) and by the second author at the 'Quelle histoire pour la médecine et la science?Dialogues autour d'une oeuvre' seminar (Institute of the History of Medicine, Lausanne -IUHMSP).Thanks are due to the participants of these events for bringing forth new ideas, especially Matthew Gambino and Mical Raz (Yale) and Vincent Barras and Francesco Panese (Lausanne).Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.This work was made possible by a Banting
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".