MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535230374 · doi:10.7202/1069064ar

Diagnosis as a Naming Ceremony: Caution Warranted in Use of the DSM-IV with Canadian Aboriginal Peoples

2020· article· en· W1535230374 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Danika Overmars

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeremonyParallelsMental healthDSM-5Relevance (law)PsychiatryPsychologyPsychiatric diagnosisMedical diagnosisMedicineHistoryPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th is the primary tool for diagnosis of mental disorders used in the field of mental health. Despite the widespread use of the DSM-IV there are limits to its applications, particularly with Canadian Aboriginal people. This paper draws parallels between the process of diagnosis and an Aboriginal naming ceremony used by the Coast-Salish people in British Columbia. Caution is suggested when applying Western based diagnoses to Aboriginal people due to the lack of cultural relevance and recommendations are made for appropriate use. Edition (DSM-IV; APA, 1994)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0230.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First PeoplesSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207