[The historical synchronicities of the Eli Lilly Canada Chair on schizophrenia research].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Created in 2004, the Eli Lilly Canada Chair on schizophrenia research was funded by Eli Lilly, the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal, Hôpital Sacré-Coeur and Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal. The aim of this article is to provide an historical overview of the scientific activities of the Chair since its inception. Method In order to carry out this historical account, we adopted a bibliometric approach. We carried out a PubMed search of all articles published by any of the Chair holders since its creation in 2004. Once the articles had been identified, we counted all the times they had been cited in the literature. This was done using Google Scholar. We also counted the main themes addressed in these articles. We adopted an externalist perspective for the interpretation of the scientific work. Results Since its creation in 2004, the Chair has published a total of 295 scientific articles, which have been cited 12,892 times. The main themes addressed in these articles are cognition, neuroimaging and antipsychotics, followed by addiction, psychosocial interventions and treatment resistance. The most influential articles showed the presence of an inflammatory syndrome and sleep difficulties in schizophrenia, in addition to corroborating the aberrant salience hypothesis of psychosis, disproving the lateralization of language hypothesis in schizophrenia, and establishing links between antipsychotic treatment and COVID-19. Discussion From an externalist perspective, the evolution of the Chair's work has been influenced by important factors external to the logic of scientific discovery, namely the commercialization of several antipsychotics during the 1990s-2000s, the relative democratization of neuroimaging during the 2000-2010s, the legalization of cannabis use for recreational purposes in 2018 in Canada, and the rise of digital health-notably virtual reality-over the past decade. Conversely, the focus on the neurobiology of violent behavior and the tendency to publish in French-language journals are trends that run counter to current social trends. The article concludes with a reflection on the nature of the concept of psychosis.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".