Editorial: Destination Mad Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomedical approach to understanding and treating people's experiences of altered states of mind and/or distress continues to dominate mental health policy, practice, and research.Responding to distress and unusual emotional or mental experiences as largely matters of a "broken brain" (Webb, 2010) is not only dominant within psychiatry but also within related disciplines such as psychology, nursing, and social work.Together these and other allied professions form what is known as the psy complex, which is an expansive and overarching system that informs and intersects with other neoliberal systems of oppression (Gorman & LeFrançois, in press;LeFrançois, 2013).The effects of this widespread dominance means that key professions, such as social work and mental health nursing, serve as handmaidens (Adam, 2014) to carrying out biomedical psychiatric interventions, eschewing those professions' roots in critical and radical approaches to providing support within a social model (Beresford, 2002(Beresford, , 2005;;Beresford, Perring, Nettle, & Wallcraft, 2016).In effect, the allied professions of clinical psychology, psychiatric social work, and mental health nursing have been almost wholly complicit in perpetrating the violence (Shimrat, 2013), racism (Butler, 2016;Kanani, 2011;LeFrançois, 2013;Voronka, 2013), sanism (Fabris, 2011;Poole et al., 2012), and epistemic injustice (Donskoy, 2015;LeBlanc & Kinsella, 2016;Liegghio, 2013) that are inherent to psychiatric oppression.However, the emergence of Mad Studies in Canada via critical disability studies, provides a convincing and unifying challenge to both the biomedical model of psychiatry and to its adherents within the psy complex.In this special issue of Intersectionalities, we approach Mad Studies as an epistemological and methodological shift away from the paternalistic professional dominance over the lives of those deemed mad.Centring the theorizings, research, practices, and culture of people who have been psychiatrized, Mad Studies provides a politicized space for the activist scholarship and action emanating from mad movements to thrive.Yet, Mad Studies understands itself not as fixed but as an evolving in/discipline where no one individual, school, institution, or local community holds authority or ownership over its definition and the directions it may take (Costa, 2014).Instead, it is a collective project that is developing primarily out of the politicized discussions, theorizings, research, interventions, and social actions taking place within our mad communities (see Ingram in this special issue).In addition to addressing psychiatric violence and challenging the pathologization of
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.010 |
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".