Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its starting point the author’s personal perspective and long term personal experience as survivor and activist/researcher to explore the ways in which the alliance of neo-liberal ideology and the psychiatric system has resisted the impact of mental health service users’/survivors’ activism and instead sought to co-opt and subvert its language, ideas and initiatives. Drawing on the author’s perspective, it looks first at how this has happened in relation to the language of mental health, exploring specific terminology. Then it examines how this has happened in relation to key ideas associated with survivors’ collective action, including self-management, peer support and recovery. It show how ‘our’ ideas have been reconstituted to serve neo-liberal ideological goals. Thirdly it looks at how survivors’ innovations have been obstructed and taken over instead by the dominant bio-medical paradigm. Finally it traces the way in which survivor knowledge has similarly been obstructed and appropriated. The article ends with discussion of ‘two beacons of hope’; the emergence of Mad Studies and ‘Gap-mending’ which offer the possibility of challenging neo-liberal dominance and emphasises the need to support and safeguard these developing opportunities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".