Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a comparative analysis of two well-developed bureaucratic systems at work in the production of files connected to the response to madness in colonial contexts. The first, more familiar and well known to those who have dug into the archival records to write about the history of madness, is the bureaucratic legacy of the lunatic asylum.The second, less familiar bureaucratic system is lunacy investigation law. This was a body of law had a much longer file-generating history than that of the asylum, but it has drawn much less attention from those interested in the history of madness. Although this ‘tale of two bureaucracies’ is one of overlap between the paperwork of the asylum and of lunacy law, the therapeutic turn in approaches to madness seems to have contributed to the marginalization of the legal, and to an over privileging of the medical. The recent digitization of paperwork has partially rescued legal bureaucracies of madness from obscurity. So too has recent interest in the paperwork of legal responses to madness by some historians. This article considers how taking the paperwork of lunacy law into account leads to a rethinking of the history of madness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".