Subterranean Histories: The Dissemination of Freud's Works into the British Discourse on Psychological Medicine, 1904–1911
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his late historical and autobiographical writings (the late writings) Ernest Jones makes two interrelated claims. The first, which he passes off as an historical fact, is that by 1904 there were ‘three sources of information available to [him]’ about Freud ( Jones, 1945b , p. 9). The second, which he makes by way of an autobiographical statement, is that he was already practising ‘the new therapy’ of psychoanalysis by 1906. Contemporaneous sources challenge the unspoken assumptions that run through Jones's late writings: that there was little or no discussion of Freud's ideas in Britain between 1904, when Jones claims he first started reading Freud, and November 1913 when he founded the London Psycho-Analytic Society. For reasons difficult to fathom Jones's version of history has been accepted almost without question. Lifting Jones's historical and autobiographical veils reveals a very different story: that when Jones first returned from Canada, in 1911, there was already a vibrant debate concerning the merits, or otherwise, of the new Freudian psychology and there were a number of doctors already treating patients with psychoanalysis or its variants. The paper concludes with a re-examination of Jones's relationship with M.D. Eder.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".