Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper by Joukamaa et al (2006, this issue) would have interested Heinz Lehmann, a German émigré psychiatrist working at Verdun hospital in Montreal, who was one of the first clinicians to investigate the effects of chlorpromazine in North America and was the first to publish an article outlining its clinical impact (Lehmann & Hanrahan, 1954). Lehmann was no simple enthusiast for physical treatments, having demonstrated that mute and deteriorated people with schizophrenia in Verdun's back wards responded to placebo injections of ‘new experimental hormones' when the injection site was painted with a disinfectant that left a prominent red stain (Lehmann, 1993). However, chlorpromazine was different. Although previous treatments had provided some benefits, nothing produced quite such dramatic effects in the experience of senior researchers such as Lehmann. Chlorpromazine ignited a wave of enthusiasm in psychiatry sufficient to sweep aside post-War differences between the Germans and the French, for instance, so that they and others convened to share their experiences on the benefits of the new drugs at international meetings rapidly organised by university departments rather than pharmaceutical companies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".