MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137560023 · doi:10.1002/jhbs.20311

Trust amply recompensed: Psychological research at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, 1957–1961

2008· article· en· W2137560023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph L. Mills, Erika Dyck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMerge (version control)AccommodationPoliticsMental health careVariety (cybernetics)Mental illnessMental healthcareGovernment (linguistics)PsychologyHealth carePublic relationsPublic administrationPolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 1950s and 1960s professionals intensely debated the prospect of changes in the mental health system, largely as a result of the introduction of new therapies, revised theories of mental disorder, and shifting policies governing mental health accommodation. As well as giving rise to new subspecialties within medicine, psychiatrists in some jurisdictions at this time worked closely with psychologists in an attempt to offer a more comprehensive set of options that merged theory with practice. In Saskatchewan, mental health professionals worked closely with government officials and bureaucrats and produced a variety of innovative strategies that addressed changing priorities in this system. This article examines the role played by psychologists in Saskatchewan during this period as they worked cooperatively with psychiatrists and bureaucrats to merge medical, psychological, and political perspectives in a system aimed at accommodating mental illness in the wake of new theories and treatments that questioned the efficacy of care in institutionalized settings in the wake of growing suggestions for care in the community.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of the Behavioral SciencesSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207