Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the dualism of historic and contemporary rise and consolidation of Psychiatry and its relationship to the social construction of mental illness in Europe.It explores the emergent power dynamics that are inherent in how mental illness and disorder has been classified by the psychiatric profession.It does this in three processes.First, the article questions the historical rise of how 'madness' had and has been problematized as deviant and criminal for social order and is a form of hegemonic control and masculinity.Is psychiatric power about human development or discipline?Second, it introduces critical trajectories that provide a thorough underpinning of how and why certain acts of mental illness have been classified as an intensified threat to morality and society rather than out of concern.Finally, the article assesses the possibilities and problems for understanding mental illness for future concerns by stating that psychiatric power needs to be "un-masked" in allowing self-governance to be realised for those that have been at the centre of the clinicians' gaze and the rethinking of the medical profession itself.It is clear that bio-psychological paradigms have dominated discussion in relation to mental illness that underpins the knowledge base of Psychiatry and there is an urgent need to develop other explanatory frameworks because dominant frameworks have failed to identify underlying social structures, processes, attitudes and social practices which inter-combine to oppress and disadvantage people who are mentally ill whilst simultaneously reproducing negative aspects of hegemonic masculinity within psychiatric regimes.What opportunities are there for meaningful human agency in the light of this?This is a long enduring question.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".