The emergence of psychiatry in Portugal: From its roots to now
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors describe the panorama of psychiatry in Portugal. Starting with the emergence of psychiatry with a humanizing stamp, in 1848, cover the six major periods of development of this speciality in Portugal, proposed by Barahona Fernandes, and add a seventh period that corresponds to the last quarter of the 20th century. They highlight the figures with greater emphasis during these periods, as well as their contributions to the speciality, not forgetting the essential role of Ordens Hospitaleiras (Hospitallers Orders). The transition period for mental health is examined in the light of the socio-political conditions of that time. The authors then describe both the teaching of psychiatry, and the actual training program of that medical speciality in Portugal. In this regard, the authors address the on-going mental health policies and their consequences on the current situation on the ground. Aspects such as the prevalence of mental disorders in Portugal, the current status of training in psychiatry, the sub-specialities of psychiatry and allied professions, the main areas of research, workforce issues and human rights issues are also analysed. Finally, the authors end with a few words about the future and the challenges of psychiatry in Portugal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".