Le mythe des deux solitudes. Des relations entre les psychiatres francophones et anglophones dans le Montreal des annees 1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie, à partir d’archives institutionnelles et de revues médicales, les relations qu’ont entretenues les psychiatres francophones et anglophones dans le Montréal des années 1950. Il montre la multiplicité ainsi que la multiplication des échanges et des collaborations entre les deux communautés au cours de la période allant de 1948 à 1961. Il entend ainsi contribuer à la déconstruction d’une historiographie traditionnelle qui distingue et oppose les psychiatries québécoises anglophone et francophone comme deux systèmes parallèles, comme deux solitudes. This paper draws upon archives of institutions and medical journals to examine the relations between Francophone and Anglophone psychiatrists in Montreal during the 1950s. It shows both the diversity and also the increase of exchanges and collaborations between these two communities from 1948 to 1961. It contributes to the deconstruction of a traditional historiography that distinguishes and opposes Francophone and Anglophone psychiatry in Quebec as two parallel systems, or even as two solitudes.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →1 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.
Archival history of relations between francophone and anglophone psychiatrists in 1950s Montreal; a professional community in the past, not contemporary research practice.
The historical study examines professional and knowledge-making relations among psychiatrists as a scientific community.
Historical study of Francophone–Anglophone psychiatrist relations in 1950s Montreal; professional medical history, not research practice as object.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".