Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the parallels among postwar Britain's “cradle to grave” welfare state with its “social safety net,” especially the National Health Service, the consequent social realism and social upheaval in every sphere of the society, and the birth of the Social Psychiatry (SP) movement in London. From Bowlby's attachment theory, to the pivot from individual to relational therapies, and from research on the social origins of depression in women and Expressed Emotion in family relationships, to the hospice movement, London has uniquely served as a model for SP. There is an organic relationship among these social phenomena in a collectivist society that values “the commons” that created a social safety net, manifested by social realism in the arts reflecting a social upheaval that challenged tradition, notably the class structure of British society. The hallmark of SP is to discern governing patterns across social domains. Anthropologist Gregory Bateson sought “the pattern that connects” while sociologists and systems theorists found patterns in the structures, scripts, and systems of a society. What distinguishes SP is in perceiving these patterns, taking them seriously to re-vision how we think about determinants and influences of mental and social health, and to construct new approaches in psychiatry from research to pedagogy and clinical practice to policy-making.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".