A Historical Sketch of Mental Health Services In Canada from the Nineteenth Century to Community Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There seems to prevail in the large majority of cases an almost incredible ignorance of the necessary conditions of efficiency, and it frequently happens that arrangements are described with complacency which are totally at variance with the most elementary principles.From the Report "Colonial Hospitals and Lunatic Asylums" p. 1, January 14, 1864.In order to gain an understanding and an appreciation of the "flavor" of services to the mentally ill in Canada, some background is necessary.By "flavor" we mean something more and other than the kind of dry descriptions of facts usually found in historical documents.We present a history of the nation and an exposition of the ontogenesis of institutional services to the mentally ill.Our attempt is to help the reader analyze and interpret the latent, often concealed metaphors in these discourses, so as to expose the feelings and ideas that normally lay below the level of conscious discussion in the past.When this is completed we will turn to the traditions in the metropolitan nations and then once again indicate how Canadian experience was able to assimilate, reorganize, and in other ways develop more creatively the experiences of France, England and the United States, the three main sources of Canadian civilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".