MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220723621 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v11i1.853

Review of Those They Called Idiots by Simon Jarrett

2022· article· en· W4220723621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick McDonagh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicine and Dermatology Studies History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityNarrativeSociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyPsychiatryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 
 Simon Jarrett’s Those They Called Idiots: The Idea of the Disabled Mind from 1700 to the Present Day is a comprehensive and insightful exploration into the history of ideas of intellectual disability, especially in the United Kingdom but with many references to Europe and North America. The book focuses primarily on the exchange of popular, legal, and medical conceptions of intellectual disability (Jarrett uses the historically-appropriate terms idiocy, imbecility, mental deficiency, feeble-mindedness, etc., depending on the era under exploration) in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and connects discourses of disability with other parallel narratives, especially colonial discourses linking “idiots” with “savages.”
 
 

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicMedicine and Dermatology Studies HistoryFrench-language works237,207