MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415567138 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1694605

Manufacturing a Monster: an autoethnographic analysis of enforced isolation, objectification and the destruction of self

2025· article· en· W4415567138 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsNetwork for Business Sustainability
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectificationTransformative learningPerspective (graphical)Isolation (microbiology)AutoethnographyKey (lock)Grief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This perspective article examines the impact of enforced isolation on the authors sense of Self. The research explores how systemic objectification and the blocking of vital "mirroring" within seclusion and long-term segregation (LTS) in psychiatric hospitals in England can lead to the erosion of Self. The paper posits that enforced isolation is not therapeutic, but a destructive intervention rooted in neuronormative ideology that ultimately escalates distress, prolonging detention. Methods: The autoethnographic perspective offers a qualitative understanding of experience to examine the phenomena of isolation and trauma. The reflexive analysis is rooted in the author's lived experiences of repeated and enduring exposure to seclusion and LTS. Results: Enforced isolation eroded the author's Self due to systemic objectification and a lack of positive "mirroring". Consequently, the Self could only be sustained through perverse connections with staff e.g., shared negative emotions such as fear, aggression and hate. With a Self-reconfigured around negative affect, the lines are blurred between intimacy and aggression, resulting in shattering implications for the author's ability to have relationships and love. Discussion: Enforced isolation is positioned as a destructive intervention, manufacturing rather than containing, distress. This perspective reframes isolation from a clinical tool to a harmful practice, contradicting therapeutic goals. Aligning with wider research, the paper calls for a transformative shift towards rights-based, relational models, such as HOPE(S), that prioritize human connection to prevent iatrogenic harm.

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)0.005
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychiatry→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→