Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum (1828–1899), a German psychiatrist, is widely recognized for his seminal work Catatonia or Tension Insanity , published 1874, in which he first conceptualized catatonia as a distinct psychomotor disorder. However, the observation of catatonic signs in the context of mental illness predates Kahlbaum’s formal classification. Understanding the history and development of different clinical concepts of catatonia before and after Kahlbaum is paramount for grasping the intricacies of current classification systems such as ICD-11 and DSM-5. Historical perspectives provide valuable insights into the evolution of diagnostic criteria and conceptualizations of catatonia over time, highlighting the diverse array of clinical presentations and the challenges inherent in defining and categorizing this complex syndrome. Further, by studying historical perspectives, clinicians and researchers gain insight into the diverse ways in which catatonia has been perceived, defined, and categorized throughout history. This chapter includes previous work on the topic of the history of catatonia as well as more recent systematic research in electronic historical archives. It addresses the origins of catatonic signs during the eighteenth century and how the concept of catatonia has been embedded in historical psychiatric literature of the nineteenth century.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".