THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROFESSIONALISATION OF PSYCHIATRY IN CANADA: AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBSPECIALTIES AND THEIR PARENT PROFESSIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent times, psychiatry as a practice, profession and a medical subspecialty has received a lot of attention from researchers. Studies on psychiatry have however focused more on issues of social control, treatment modalities and historical accounts than they have on its professional development and role as a professional subspecialty. This thesis will uncover the professionalisation of psychiatry and its relationship with medicine, through a sociological study and analysis of secondary and primary historical sources. From the study, it is revealed that psychiatry’s relationship with regular medicine was shaped by its efforts to gain, enhance and maintain legitimacy. In the nineteenth century, this led it to distance itself from medicine, but after medicine attained more legitimacy by the First World War, psychiatry drew closer and sought to establish more ‘medicalized’ forms of assessment and treatment. The psychiatric profession was shaped to a large extent by its attempts to identify with and be recognized as part of regular medicine. The development and professionalisation of psychiatry suggests that the drive for legitimacy is crucial in shaping inter-professional relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".