The franklin commission report in light of past and present understandings of hypnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnosis has a formal history of more than 2 centuries, and over this period various metaphors have been coined to point to what investigators perceived as its most essential characteristic. The Franklin Commission Report on Animal Magnetism rejected Mesmer's procedures despite his successes. The Commission argued, on the basis of a number of experiments, that these improvements could be accounted for in terms of imagination, imitation, and touch. In current theorizing, the role of imagination in hypnotic outcomes is still widely recognized, but following the theorizing of J. R. Hilgard, Sarbin and Coe, and Sutcliffe, absorbed imagination looks to be the more appropriate conceptualization. The only blemish on the Commission's report is its conclusion that because Animal Magnetism did not exist, then the techniques associated with it could not have therapeutic effects.
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".