MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995127811 · doi:10.1177/0967772014533059

A biography of William Tuke (1732–1822): Founder of the modern mental asylum

2014· article· en· W1995127811 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ayisha A Kibria, Neil H Metcalfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Biography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsBiographyFaithGeorge (robot)LawMental illnessSociologyPsychoanalysisHistoryMental healthArt historyMedicinePhilosophyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPsychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William Tuke was a 19th-century reformist and philanthropist notable for his work in mental health. He was known for his strict self-discipline and judicious manner. He was also a firm believer in the Quaker faith and actively supported the group and employed many of their principles in his work, especially in his chef d'oeuvre, The Retreat, established in 1792, a mental asylum in York. Possibly catalysed by the very public mismanagement of King George III's 'madness', he pioneered the use of moral treatment, a new humane method of treating mental illness. This focussed on allowing patients to live in a community, partake in daily activities and not be subjected to the brutality of the commonplace asylum, all of which were very rare in the treatment of lunatics at that time. Described as 'The Period of Humane Reform', his work coincided with the emergence of similar approaches in France, most famously by Philippe Pinel (1745-1826) and his pupil Jean Esquirol (1772-1840) in Paris. Tuke eventually went on to aid in the reform of the law with regards to asylums.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical BiographySame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207