MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328361222 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e318275d299

Three 20th-Century Multiauthored Handbooks Serving as Vital Catalyzers of an Emerging Specialization

2012· article· en· W2328361222 on OpenAlexaff
Frank W. Stahnisch, Peter J. Koehler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsGermanNeuropsychiatryDisciplineNeurologyClassicsLibrary sciencePsychologyPsychiatryPsychoanalysisHistoryMedical educationMedicineSociologySocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Originating in the late 19th century, psychiatry and neurology emerged during a period of several decades as two distinct fields of medical inquiry, separate from the study and practice of internal medicine. Around 1900, the German-speaking countries in Europe played an important role in this development. In this article, the publication of three influential multivolume and multiauthor handbooks are studied. All available volumes of Max Lewandowsky's Handbuch der Neurologie (1910-1914) and the Handbuch der Neurologie (1935-1937) of Oswald Bumke and Otfrid Foerster are analyzed. The handbooks are compared with Pierre Vinken and George Bruyn's Handbook of Clinical Neurology (1968-2002). This article is particularly timely in that it helps to reveal some of the origins of the disciplinary split-even at a moment when "brain psychiatry" (Wilhelm Griesinger), "neuropsychiatry" (Kurt Goldstein), and the German notion of Nervenheilkunde all acknowledged the interdisciplinary nature of both psychiatry and neurology. Particular emphasis is placed on the preeminent role that Jewish clinical neurologists assumed in the editing of the respective handbooks, leading to the extraordinary breadth and wealth of these publications. A great number of doyens in the fields of neurology and psychiatry-among them numerous Nobel Prize laureates-were involved in the dissemination of contemporary knowledge, including diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, which testifies to the fundamental status that these handbooks held for training purposes for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Finally, the volumes analyzed in this article (between 1911 and 2002) are representative of a shift in the dominant scientific language, from German to English, since the 1930s and the 1940s, as well as the change in geographical distribution of the leading scientific authors, from Central Europe (Germany, Austria, Holland, France, Italy, and Scandinavia) to North America (the United States).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207