Re: The Persistence of Folly: A Critical Examination of Dissociative Identity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their article published in Sep-tember 2004 (1), authors Dr Piper andDr Merskey respond to previous assertionsthatthe“criticsofDID‘neverreviewtheliter-ature adequately’” (p 593). In fact, the criti-cismisaccurate.Acaseinpointistheirreviewof my article confirming childhood abuse inchild andadolescent casesofmultiple person-ality disorder (MPD) (2). In their article, DrPiper and Dr Merskey allege that confirma-tion of abuse is lacking. I will quote directlyfrom my article so that readers can make uptheir own minds:Of the 9 patients with MPD, all reportedeither physical (89%) or sexual abuse(89%). Abusers included 7 fathers or step-fathers, 5 mothers, 1 brother, and 1 grand-father. Mean length of reported abuse was8.3years(range3to14years).Allhadreported their abuse to someone else andsubsequently this abuse had been reportedto child protective services. In 2 cases theabuse had been observed by the mothersand in a third case the abuse had beenobserved by the police. In 2 instances theparents both steadfastly denied any childabuse. In the remaining 5 cases no informa -tion was available about whether the abusehad been observed. In only one case wasthere absolutely no evidence to confirmprevious child abuse. In 4 cases the chil-dren had been removed from the home bychild protective services and in 3 of theseparental rights had been terminated. Of the3 cases where prosecution had been pur-sued, 2 ended in jail sentences for thefathers and one father was awaiting trial.Curiously, of the 2 motherswho denied knowledge of abuse, bothdivorced their husbands shortly after alle-gations of sexual abuse surfaced (2, p 463)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".