Deinstitutionalization of Mental Health Care in British Columbia: A Critical Examination of the Role of Riverview Hospital from 1950 to 2000
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 19th century, ideas based on moral treatment, pedagogical guidance of mentally ill patients and hospitals specializing in caring for the mentally ill, were viewed with high regard as innovative and progressive institutions. As mental hospitals grew into large custodial institutions, they experienced criticism in regards to issues of overcrowding, inadequate funding and provision of care, alienation, and isolation of patients from society. These criticisms resulted in public pressure for deinstitutionalization, increased emphasis on the importance of community care and regionalization of mental health services in the post World War Two era. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how this transformation evolved in British Columbia. Riverview Hospital was established as a centralized mental hospital for the province. The period of the early 1950s ushered in the move towards decentralization and saw the beginning of the decline of Riverview’s population and eventual diminution of its role in the province. Popularity of the idea of deinstitutionalization grew swiftly, however, its operationalization and the practical consequences of this shift in care seems to be minimally informed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it