Les archives psychiatriques : une occasion de saisir l’expérience du patient (Belgique, entre-deux-guerres)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an exploratory reflection on the question of individual experience by patients in psychiatric institutions, in its historical dimension. Are such experiences comprehensible through an analysis of the archives originating in the hospital? This reflection forms part of a study concerning the circumstances in which women were placed in psychiatric institutions, in Belgium during interwar period (1918-1940); its ultimate objective is to come to an understanding of the social, individual and familial situations that lead to a decision to intern a woman in a closed psychiatric institution. Here, the concept of experience is used to ascertain whether a different understanding of psychiatry is viable, that is to say, to understand it as a personal life-story and as a social fact. Could we, by dint of the psychiatric archives produced by medical institutions, go beyond institutional and medical issues, so as to understand how those placed in a psychiatric institution lived through their mental illness? The objective of this article is also to prepare several methodological markers with respect to issues of interpretation, of individual experience and of emotion. This article is not so much a summing-up of the results of research conducted in psychiatric archives, but rather a deliberation on the historian's approach and appropriate course of action on the question of first-hand experience in psychiatry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".