MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210455513 · doi:10.1177/00332941211061080

The Historical Significance of Titicut Follies in Psychiatric Treatment: An Anti-Censorship Perspective

2022· review· en· W4210455513 on OpenAlexaff
Salvatore B. Durante

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensorshipPerspective (graphical)PoliticsPsychologyInstitutionCriminologySocial psychologyLawPsychiatryInternet privacyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Works of art and information judged as obscene can be censored or banned. This brief review evaluates the costs and benefits of censorship and the banning of artwork and information. In the history of psychology, Frederick Wiseman’s film Titicut Follies epitomizes the disadvantages of concealing art content. Despite protecting the privacy of patients, the ban of Titicut Follies delayed the reform of psychiatric treatment practices and hospitals. The decision to censor or ban artistic and scientific information can result in the loss of knowledge and potential improvements to social, political, and economic institution practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207