DSM-V and the Definitions: Time to Get It Right: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the decades, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) [1] has made very important contributions to the mental health field in the classification of mental illness. However, as the manual is updated, some members of the American Psychiatric Association DSM-V Committee believe the word “addiction” is still too stigmatizing and argue that the term “dependence” should remain [2]. In our opinion, perpetuating this ambiguity is in no one's best interest. Much in the same way as we in addiction treatment hope our patients will come to see things “the way they are, not the way they wish they were,” the so-called “Golden Moment”[3], we would encourage the DSM-V committee to approach this unique situation as a “golden opportunity” to restore the term “addiction” to its rightful place in the medical lexicon. Unfortunately, while the terms “physical dependence” and “addiction” are often used interchangeably, they are not the same at all. In fact, a joint committee comprised of members of the American Pain Society, the American Society of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the Liaison Committee for Pain and Addiction, in 2001 developed consensus definitions for physical dependence, addiction, and tolerance that were approved by the governing bodies of each organization [4]. The key point here is that physical dependence is an expected, neuroadaptive consequence of chronic exposure to an agonist class of drug while addiction is a complex, multidimensional biopsychosocial phenomenon that occurs in at risk individuals when elective reward transitions into compulsive use [5].
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".