MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199662935 · doi:10.1215/01642472-9034418

Four Gestures toward a Trans-Mad Aesthetic of Space

2021· article· en· W3199662935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Text · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderConstitutionSociologyMythologyGestureAestheticsSpace (punctuation)PoliticsHostilityGender studiesLawArtPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophySocial psychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article argues for what the author calls a trans-mad aesthetic of space, defined as designs or artworks that embark, sense, emote, and collect, in ways that queerly disrupt the norms of the public sphere. These four aesthetic operations resist, in turn, four current affective/spatial norms of mental health treatment: confinement, rationality, repression, and an individualizing model of madness. As part of unfolding this model for a trans-mad aesthetic, the article asserts that the link between transgender and madness (as categories) is not merely one of addition—say, people who are both transgender and mad—but, rather, one of mutual constitution. To make these suggestions, the article engages an eccentric archive that includes posters that advocate transgender depathologization, Greek mythologies of gendered madness, government legislation about sexual sterilization, and psych ward design protocols. Its two key case studies, however, are artistic: Hannah Hull and James Leadbitter's “Madlove: A Designer Asylum” and the oeuvre of Montreal performance artist Coral Short.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.089
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial TextSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207