MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201139739 · doi:10.3138/topia-43-005

Letting Madness In: Toward Hospitality Without Incarceration

2021· article· en· W3201139739 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Erin Soros

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalityPsychoanalysisSociologyRendering (computer graphics)ArtPsychologyTourismLawPolitical scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by Of Hospitality, which consists of two texts on facing pages by Anne Dufourmantelle and Jacques Derrida, Erin Soros and Richard Ingram collaborated to hone in on an aporia in Dufourmantelle and Derrida’s meditation on hospitality. The writing of this collaborative work took place through hospitality: the authors invited each other into their homes, and altered the texts of the host, rendering thresholds porous and troubling the ways in which madness is circumscribed and contained. Why are some forms of asylum considered and others only to be passed over? In the present article, Erin Soros uses Derrida to critique the madness of Ontario and British Columbia’s mental health acts, in which rights are stripped from the Mad through a system of carceral psychiatry and a logic that is haunted by its own madness. In a companion text (to be published in TOPIA 44), Richard Ingram focuses on two aspects of Derrida’s topology of hospitality, addressing the acts of letting madness into a dwelling and letting madness into the mind.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0170.046
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207