Progress Derailed: How the Great War Altered the Course of French Psychiatry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Progress Derailed: How the Great War Altered the Course of French PsychiatryThe First World War marked an abrupt halt in the development of French psychology, particularly in the study of trauma.The 1880s and 1890s saw remarkable advancements in neurology, which included Jean-Martin Charcot's new research on hysteria.His studies redefined its origin and inspired many of the neurologists who would become integral in handling the devastating effects of "war neuroses" after the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.These wartime neurologists were faced with an onslaught of soldiers suffering from what were called "functional disorders", which consisted of physical symptoms without a corresponding injury.Symptoms of functional injuries ranged from "paralysis and anaesthesia to mutism and deafness".1 Between the incredible number of cases doctors were presented with and the socio-political environment the War created in France, neurology underwent a shift in ideology away from Charcot's revelatory discoveries regarding hysteria.The priority of neurologists was now to cure the soldiers of their functional problems and return them to a desperate and demanding front line.Though he died over a decade before the outbreak of the war, Jean-Martin Charcot's studies on trauma greatly influenced wartime psychology.In a striking contrast to historical studies on hysteria, Charcot studied the effects of trauma in working class men.For years, 'hysteria' had been associated solely with the "fragile emotions" of women from the upper and middle classes of society.Charcot's groundbreaking case studies introduced a new diagnosis for 1 Gregory M. Thomas, Treating the Trauma of the Great War: Soldiers, Civilians, and Psychiatry in France, 1914-1940, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009, 20.Shelby Drozdowski men called 'traumatic neurosis' that would alter both public and medical perception. 2 Charcot and his students argued that hysteria (literally meaning "wandering womb") was not an affliction of wayward female anatomy.Charcot believed hysteria was instead a disorder of the nervous system that could affect both women and men. 3 This nervous affliction, as theorized by Charcot, required both a hereditary predisposition and an environmental stimulus in order to generate symptoms of traumatic neuroses.Charcot believed the "traumatic stimuli acted on this prior constitutional susceptibility, and the fact that some individuals developed elaborate neurotic symptoms… [was] explained by the presence or absence of this background".4 Many of Charcot's hysteric patients suffered an injury from a railway or workplace accident.Though the bodily harm done was minor, patients presented with symptoms that could not be attributed to any physical injury.Charcot found that the most common symptoms were "motoric and sensory disturbances of the extremities-anaesthesias, hyperesthesias, paralyses, and contractures of all kinds".Railway and workplace accidents had been studied before, and generally led neurologists to the conclusion that industrialization caused a perceived loss of control and was responsible for these unique symptoms.5 In a small number of Charcot's cases, however, patients suffered from a physical accident outside the workplace.In the case of "Mar", the young man developed neurological symptoms two weeks after he was assaulted and stabbed, while "Greff" almost drowned on a fishing trip and developed an eye twitch and motor
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,022 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».