MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118673919 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13682

From the Disordered Mind to the Socialized Lived Body: Agoraphobia Through the Lens of a Radical Feminist Phenomenology

2019· dissertation· en· W3118673919 on OpenAlexaff
Vesna Lukić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenology (philosophy)Lived experienceAgoraphobiaSocializationPsychologyPsychoanalysisGender studiesSociologyAestheticsSocial psychologyEpistemologyAnxietyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores the potential to reconceptualise agoraphobia through a radical feminist phenomenological framework, moving away from a strictly medicalized understanding of agoraphobic lived experiences. A radical feminist phenomenological framework is developed by reading Iris Marion Young's account of women's bodily existence in a patriarchal society through Sarah Lucia Hoagland's theoretical framework of "protection and predation". The early lived experiences of agoraphobic women are then read through this theoretical framework, suggesting that agoraphobic women are socialized into aspects of female bodily existence during their early childhoods. The unpredictability of this early childhood familial environment is argued to play a role in the manifestation of this socialization process and in the experience of female bodily existence. This thesis argues that agoraphobic lived experiences arise as a result of this socialization process, which presents an understanding of these experiences as socialized lived bodily experiences.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.038
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207