The dynamic of intersected social categories in social interactions in a Brazilian psychosocial care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brazilian Psychiatric Reform advocates non-asylum treatment for individuals diagnosed with severe or persistent mental disorders, which is conducted mainly by Psychosocial Care Centers. This study aims to understand the role of intersected social categories in social interactions among social actors in those institutions. This qualitative ethnographic research uses the technique of participant observation. For the theoretical framework, intersectionality theory was chosen, in combination with the concept of intersectional stigma to reflect on intersectional discrimination. Erving Goffman´s works are also used to evaluate how social categories are socially situated. In addition to power relations between staff members and patients, the study examined the intersection of social categories, including how the social actors involved tend to notice their oppressions, but not their privileges, that is, the oppressions of others. The researcher argues therefore that, within that institution, the intersected social categories influence the dynamic of social interactions and generate an even more unjust experience for the patients in the institution in 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".