MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Moral Treatment

2015· other· en· W4248391182 on OpenAlexaff
Louis C. Charland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalysisPsychologyHistoryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Moral treatment refers to a psychological approach to treating mental disorder that arose across Europe and North America around the turn of the eighteenth century. It is mostly associated with the French physician Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) and the English Quaker philanthropist William Tuke (1732–1819). Pinel and Tuke each independently developed their own distinct models of the once popular therapy known as moral treatment. Although moral treatment is often considered to have been a successful therapy in its early years, it was eventually replaced by custodial care on a mass scale and became a travesty of its earlier self.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.017

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical PsychologySame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207