Karl Grassmann's 1896 paper “critical overview of contemporary theories of the heredity of the psychoses”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four years before the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900, Karl Grassmann published a detailed, scholarly review of the heredity of psychosis which we here review. A full translation is in the appendix. We emphasize seven major conclusions from this review. First, while recognizing the key importance of heredity in the etiology of psychosis. Grassmann was critical of many of the highly speculative extant theories. Second, he reviewed most of the major methodologic concerns in the literature from what kinds of heredity to investigate to the problems with the global use of insanity as a diagnostic category. Third, he discussed in detail genetic theories associated with Degeneration theory, maintaining considerable skepticism. Fourth, he recognized nongenetic contribution to familial transmission. Fifth, he reviewed evidence for both homogeneous and heterogeneous transmission of forms of mental illness in families, suggesting that both were important. Sixth, while he noted that mania, melancholia, and cyclothymia commonly replaced each other in families, Verrücktheit (delusional psychoses) rarely co-segregated in families with these mood disorders. Seventh, Grassmann, like other 19th century writers, saw relatives to be of value only in assessing the level of hereditary predisposition in patients and had limited appreciation of the need for controlled studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".