The Place of Mad People and Disabled People in Canadian Historiography: Surveys, Biographies, and Specialized Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will consider the extent to which mad and disabled people’s histories have, or have not, been included in studies of Canada’s past, including in surveys, biographies and specialized fields. The purpose is to understand when, where and how people deemed mad or disabled have been excluded or included in broader discussions of Canadian history and how the recent growth of mad people’s history and disability history in Canada can influence historiographical developments. There will also be a discussion of how both fields are directly related since people deemed mad were and are to this day categorized under the broad scope of disability, just as are people with physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities. Consideration will also be given to how this field of inter-disciplinary research has benefited from work by researchers who do not necessarily identify as historians in either field but whose work has contributed to these areas, such as through the scholarship of medical historians. The ultimate aim of this paper is to advocate for mad and disabled people’s histories to become incorporated more widely beyond these specialized fields when interpreting Canada’s past.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".