MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130794914 · doi:10.1521/psyc.2007.70.3.252

Mental Health Reform Not Always Beneficial

2007· article· en· W2130794914 on OpenAlexaff
Mary V. Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyNothingPoliticsMental healthPsychologyPsychiatryPositive economicsSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyLawEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

History is instructive even when the lessons learned cannot be easily transposed to a new time and place. The aim of this paper is to describe psychiatric reforms implemented one hundred years ago in Germany and how, contrary to their intention, they resulted, with changes in economics, politics and ideology, in disaster for psychiatric patients. The conclusion for our time is that the new and seemingly expedient need always to be questioned. If nothing else, the paper reviews an important era in the history of our profession.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatrySame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207