Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary responds to Shapiro, Bussing, and Nguyen’s (2014) case study of "Kate," a 16-year-old adolescent female who required psychiatric hospitalization for auditory hallucinations with secondary delusional thinking. I continue their discussion about the conceptualization of hallucinatory experiences in the context of an individual case, and the significance of this conceptualization for diagnosis and treatment. In particular, this commentary summarizes contemporary research on the diverse manifestations of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) and the difficulties with developing a meaningful classification system for these phenomena. It then investigates one approach to understanding AVHs, philosophical phenomenology, and argues for the relevance of this approach in clarifying the formal features of a symptom and relating these in a meaningful way to the overall structure of the underlying pathology. Finally, this commentary applies a phenomenological perspective to Kate’s particular symptomatology, and discusses the implications of its findings for treatment approaches with Kate and others who experience various forms of AVHs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it