Le changement de nos valeurs et certitudes au long de ce demi-siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay attempts to describe and discuss the major changes in values and fundamental beliefs related to clinical practice within the Département de psychiatrie de l'Université de Montréal since its creation fifty years ago.Being an essay, the methods include shared recollections, discussions with colleagues, especially between the co-authors, and the study of some documents related to the practice of psychiatry 40 to 50 years ago.Five major axes of change are proposed: 1- From psychoanalysis to brain diseases, 2- From "Can a non-physician practice psychoanalysis?" to "Can a psychiatrist still perform psychotherapy?" 3- From continuity of care to episodes of treatment, 4- From treatment first to repeated assessments of patients, 5- From love that can heal and repair to a taboo of love.Finally it is suggested that the increasing emphasis on psychopharmacology and on DSM classifications has contributed to a shift from attempts to understand the intimate nature of symptoms and suffering to a priority given to rather mechanical clinical assessments in search of "objective" criteria.
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 | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".