“Subtleties of damage”: Montréal, medicine, and migration in the making of intergenerational trauma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mid-1960s Montréal, a team of psychiatrists affiliated with the city's Jewish General Hospital identified a disturbing trend in their family therapy practice. The children of concentration camp survivors exhibited forms of severe maladjustment and psychopathology despite their parents' seeming good mental health. These clinical cases examined through a cybernetic-informed family therapy suggested to the psychiatrists that certain forms of trauma could be transmitted across the generations to those who had not experienced the camps firsthand. When daily newspapers publicized this theory in 1968, it met with organized opposition from Montréal's community of Holocaust survivors. The public outcry led the main researcher Vivian Rakoff to drop this line of inquiry. The concept of intergenerational trauma only started gaining traction a decade later in the United States through a network of support groups established in major urban centers by the now grown children of the camp survivors. Following the activism of Vietnam veterans, feminists, and their allies in the helping professions, trauma had acquired new cultural legitimacy in 1970s. It could describe social harms while downplaying the sufferer's personal culpability for their maladjustments. Leaders of these new support groups rejected the Montréal psychiatrists' clinical diagnosis while creating horizontally organized therapeutic spaces to talk about this shared trauma in ways that promoted forms of self-discovery and expression. The Montréal psychiatrists both did and did not discover in the 1960s what became known as intergenerational trauma. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".