MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416720887 · doi:10.1192/bja.2025.10180

<i>Trial by Medicine</i> : a landmark interdisciplinary exploration of legal insanity and criminal responsibility in Victorian Britain

2025· article· en· W4416720887 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDecadence, Literature, and Society
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsanityRigourWitnessCriminal responsibilityLandmarkExpert witnessInsanity defenseSocial responsibility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Roger Smith’s Trial by Medicine: Insanity and Responsibility in Victorian Trials traced how Victorian Britain defined legal insanity. Through an interdisciplinary approach, Smith demonstrated how determinations of criminal responsibility were shaped by more than legal reasoning alone, with verdicts also influenced by professional ambition among expert witness groups often with divergent medical opinions, in addition to broader factors such as social class, gender and evolving moral values. Given its rigour and societal insights, it represents a landmark achievement in the field.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.368 · 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