Dissociation - a preliminary contextual model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) system has certain limitations when applied to two South African examples of dissociation, because it is descriptive (non-explanatory) and focuses on intrapsychic (non-communal) processes. Even the existing Western explanatory models of dissociation fail to accommodate fully the communal aspects of dissociation in our South African context. Objectives and methods. The aim was to explore an expanded perspective on dissociation that does not limit it to an intrapsychic phenomenon, but that accounts for the interrelatedness of individuals within their social context. Auto-ethnography was used. In this article a collective, socially orientated, contextual hermeneutic was applied to two local examples of dissociation. Three existing Western models were expanded along multicontextual, collective lines, for them to be more useful in the pluralistic South African context. Results. This preliminary contextual model of dissociation includes a person’s interpersonal, socio-cultural, and spiritual contexts, in addition to the intrapsychic context. Dissociation is considered to be a normal information-processing tool that maintains balanced, coherent selves-in-society, i.e. individuals connected to each other. In the South African context dissociation appears mostly as a normal phenomenon and seldom as a sign of mental illness. Dissociation is pivotal for the normal construction of individual and communal identities in the face of conflicting sets of information from various contexts. Dissociation may help individuals or communities to survive in a world of conflicting messages, where conflict is often interpersonal/cultural/societal in nature, rather than primarily intrapsychic. Conclusions. This model should be developed and evaluated further. Such evaluation would require suitable new local terminology.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.002 |
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".