Bibliographic record
Abstract
* Abbreviation: JHU — : Johns Hopkins University The “Menace of Psychiatry.”1 The title of pediatrician Joseph Brennemann’s 1931 article was inflammatory, and it was meant to be. Brennemann voiced concerns about psychiatry that many contemporary pediatricians shared at the time.2,3 Under “psychiatry” he included the work of an array of professionals in psychology, child development, and child guidance who, in his opinion, were negatively influencing parents’ attitudes toward their children’s health. These professionals, who were trained in psychoanalysis, mental testing, or the behaviorist psychology of John B. Watson, popularized standards, techniques, and theories that parents could not fully understand. In addition, they led parents to see any variation from a scientifically defined ideal of health as a problem. Brennemann argued that only pediatricians had sufficient knowledge of the specific and normal conditions of children’s lives to understand each child as an individual and to diagnose pathologic deviations. Yet, lacking the elaborate jargon of the psychoanalysts or the prestige of the behaviorists’ laboratory methods, pediatricians appeared to be losing the ongoing debate over a fundamental question: who is the expert on the mental health of children?4 Recognizing the validity of Brennemann’s concerns, psychiatrist Leo Kanner,5,6 head of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) School of Medicine, called for an alliance between child psychiatry and pediatrics. Here, we examine how Kanner came to that conviction through the influence of psychiatrist Adolf Meyer and pediatrician Edwards A. Park and argue that pediatrics deeply shaped Kanner’s work in … Address correspondence to Marga Vicedo, Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, Victoria College, Room 316, 91 Charles St W, Toronto, ON M5S 1K7, Canada. E-mail: marga.vicedo{at}utoronto.ca
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".