MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891381371 · doi:10.1386/jptv.6.3.283_1

Mental illness media and the paradox of ‘productivity’ in Elementary and Limitless

2018· article· en· W2891381371 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Brayton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Popular Television · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessAddictionNarrativeProductivityPsychologyAnxietyDepression (economics)Work (physics)Mentally illMental healthPsychiatrySocial psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines representations of mental illness in North American network television. It is particularly drawn to the CBS police procedurals Elementary (2012–present) and Limitless (2015) as distinct but overlapping stories of mental illness, addiction and intellectual labour. Though depression, drug addiction and anxiety disorders are treated differently in each series, Elementary and Limitless offer complementary narratives of occupational therapy that equate work with mental well-being. While they seem to present a positive image of mentally ill characters with meaningful jobs, Elementary and Limitless measure mental fitness by one’s capacity to work in the same industries often linked to mental illnesses in the first place, resulting in a paradox of productivity. Here the television programmes, much like occupational therapy, tend to overlook critical questions about the socio-economic underpinnings of psychological disorders and encourage viewers to understand the links between mental illness and work in rather myopic ways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Popular TelevisionSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207