Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempting suicide is a criminal offense in India, although in the recent past there have been many public and legal discussions considering decriminalizing suicide attempts. How is suicide conceptualized within criminal law? What are the knowledges that inform the complex and shifting views, claims, and legal decisions that constitute the legal regulation of suicide, in India today? Informed by Foucauldian works on governmentality and biopolitics, postcolonial studies, sociolegal scholarship, and queer theory, this dissertation attempts to answer these questions by tracing the discourses that inform the regulation of suicide in India and showing how they are put together (or kept apart) in various legal and governance networks. In addition to a systematic, original study of how suicide appears in criminal court decisions, law reform documents, and proposed laws, this dissertation also studies the framing of suicide within psychiatric and psychosocial public mental health programming. \nAlong with studying the framing and the governance of suicide within law and medical systems, I also study a kind of suicide that exists at the edges of both medical and legal rights systems: hijra suicides. “Hijra” is a gender/sexual identity specific to the South Asian region that does not necessarily fit well under the label of ‘transgender’ (a label that has come into prominence in Indian rights law in recent years). Based on my fieldwork in Bangalore, I study hijra suicides to demonstrate that these experiences exist at the edges of both public health programs and rights/legal discourses. In existing at the fringes of all current forms of governmentality, I demonstrate that hijras continue to exert their personhood through expressing their experiences with suicide, which makes the more general point that sociolegal studies of medical-legal assemblages should not be reduced to studies of successful governmentalization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".