Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation provides the first scholarly account of the use of psychosurgery in western Canada in the mid-20th-century. In particular, the adoption, organization, and purpose of the treatment within provincial mental hospitals in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are explored. I argue that while psychosurgery’s adoption in these provinces mirrored its deployment elsewhere in North America, the cumulative impact of decades of overcrowding, inadequate funding, the privations of war, and the devastation of the Great Depression only amplified psychosurgery’s appeal by the early 1940s. Although it was touted as a therapeutic advancement, the treatment—along with three other somatic therapies—enabled psychiatrists in western Canada to bolster their image in the medical community by demonstrating they were capable of actively treating mental illness. From a more critical perspective, I also explore the notion that psychosurgery was employed in service of a larger social agenda ascribed to mental hospitals—namely, the systemic management, control, and correction of a segment of the population that had been deemed a burden to society. Once the treatment was introduced, each province needed to negotiate who would perform the surgeries and how, when, and where they would take place. The expansion of psychosurgery in most of the provinces was ultimately made possible by federal mental health grants that became available in 1948. By 1954, all of the provincial mental hospitals were performing psychosurgery—either on site or in partnership with a nearby general hospital. Based on available data from each province, there were at least 1,240 operations conducted in western Canada between 1943 and 1973. Of the western provinces, however, Manitoba and British Columbia maintained the most robust psychosurgical programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".