MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“The New Generation”: Mental Hygiene and the Portrayals of Children by the National Film Board of Canada, 1946–1967

2003· article· en· W1986062804 on OpenAlex
Brian Low

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Education Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersYale University
KeywordsNewspaperRealmMass mediaPsychologyMental hygieneMental healthScripting languageMedia studiesSocial scienceSociologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

That is the achievement of the psychologists. In our own society they are very kind, and do everything for our own good. The tales of what they do elsewhere are rather terrifying. —Hilda Neatby So Little for the Mind (1953) Documenting the impact of the mental hygiene movement has been problematical for historians. The hygienists operated in the realm of mass psychology and social relations, within the “mentalities” of children—particularly of the postwar generation—who have left little observable evidence of changing social attitudes and relationships resulting from changes to mass child-rearing and schooling practices. The influence of the movement upon parenting literature and curricular documents may be readily observed in postwar baby books, magazines, newspapers, radio scripts, and films, as well as in the changing language of educational theorists and practitioners. But as to seeing the actual effects of this material upon any society, documentary evidence has remained elusive.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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