Will, Desire and Experience: Etiology and Ideology in the German and Austrian Medical Discourse on War Neuroses, 1914–1922
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During World War I, German and Austro-Hungarian army doctors maintained that even the most dreadful experiences in the trenches could not, by themselves, generate the neurotic symptoms from which so many soldiers suffered. At first, it was argued that intrusive sound waves, not experience, were the crucial pathogenic agents. Psychogenic etiologies of trauma then became preponderant, but it was claimed that the symptoms stemming from experiences were transient and easily curable. Treatmentresistant symptoms were declared to be the result of the soldiers’ lack of will to fight and attributed to the influence of countervailing unconscious ideas and desires. The main aim of such etiologies was to stigmatize neurotic soldiers as cowards and weaklings, prevent them from leaving military service and block the payment of compensation for the work disability generated by the symptoms. In addition, these etiologies also legitimized the use of therapeutic violence against soldiers. After the war, some neuropsychiatrists continued to discuss the war neuroses within a radically nationalist outlook. Sigmund Freud took a different stance and criticized the nationalist commitment of army doctors. His post-war work sparked a new etiological discourse on war neuroses, which portrayed traumatized soldiers as victims of the war.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".