MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958466687 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.288-092018

En quête de financement pour la création d’une clinique externe et d’un service social comme parachèvement de la désinstitutionnalisation à l’Hôpital Saint-Michel-Archange de Beauport, 1961–72

2019· article· fr· W2958466687 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Karine Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La parution du rapport de la Commission d’étude des hôpitaux psychiatriques (rapport Bédard) en 1962 fut longtemps considérée comme un point de rupture dans l’histoire de la psychiatrie québécoise. L’historiographie récente propose une nouvelle interprétation du phénomène de la désinstitutionnalisation au Québec en s’intéressant à des initiatives datant du début du 20esiècle. Dans cette perspective, nous proposons l’hypothèse que le rapport Bédard constitue un levier politique pour obtenir un financement après l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi de l’assurance-hospitalisation en 1961 et que ses recommandations s’appuient sur les changements en cours. Cet article offre une relecture du rapport de la commission en ce qui concerne l’Hôpital Saint-Michel-Archange de Beauport et jette un éclairage différent sur la désinstitutionnalisation au Québec. Pour illustrer les changements organisationnels qui se produisent entre 1962 et 1972, notamment grâce à un nouveau financement public, nous nous appuyons sur les informations contenues dans un dossier médical spécifique.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207