MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392176653 · doi:10.46692/9781447364306.007

Social services in Nazi Germany and the role of social workers between complicity and rare resistance

2023· other· en· W4392176653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carola Kuhlmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityResistance (ecology)NazismSociologyPolitical scienceLawBiologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter contains references to the abuse and murder of people with disabilities, under the Nazi regime, that readers may find upsetting or disturbing. What led to national socialist ‘ Volkspflege ’ (People's Care)? Dividing the ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ clients: a modern idea Social work in Germany has emerged from Christian charity in the monasteries and hospitals of the Middle Ages with their doctrine of the duty to give alms to all who begged for it. Since about 1500 the new idea became established that poor people should be examined to see whether they were ‘worthy’ of support. Honorary municipal officials proved the willingness to work and the moral way of life of the poor. The ‘unworthy poor’ were locked up in poorhouses and penitentiaries in order to educate them to work (Kuhlmann, 2013, pp 21). The division into ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ finally received a new, eugenic interpretation in the 19th century, and especially during the National Socialist era. Eugenic thinking and its long tradition The idea of improving humanity through ‘breeding’ emerged not only in Germany, but first in England (Francis Galton, 1822– 1911), and likewise throughout Europe, in the US, Canada and other immigration countries. Not only conservative or reactionary but also socialist and some feminist thinkers were impressed by the idea of combatting social problems by regulating reproduction. In Germany, the conviction arose, especially in psychiatric research, that criminality and other deviant behaviour could mainly be explained by hereditary diseases. Researchers referred to the examinations of the physique of people who had become criminals, as carried out by the Italian Cesare Lombroso (1876). As a result of the successful fight against cholera and tuberculosis through social hygiene measures, the view spread that hygienic concepts could also be successful in other areas. Thus, healthcare was already been oriented towards ‘racial hygiene’ from the turn of the 20th century (in marriage counselling centres or in sexual healthcare). Around 1920, many psychiatrists in Germany were examining the residents of care institutions and categorising them, for example, as ‘libidinous, indifferent, brutal or morally inferior’. Most of them concluded that these people were more than 90 per cent hereditarily burdened because their parents and grandparents had already been labelled in a similar way (Kuhlmann, 1989, pp 79).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.014
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207