Discrimination, ethnicity and psychosis — a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: the increased incidence of psychosis in African‐Caribbeans in the UK compared to the white British population has been frequently reported. The cause for this is unclear; social factors are said to account for this increase and one factor that is often cited is discrimination.Aims and method: we have looked at two groups of psychotic patients, blacks of Caribbean origin and white British, and present a qualitative comparison of the individual's experience of unfair treatment and its perceived cause.Results: the African‐Caribbean patients did not describe more perceived discrimination than their white counterparts but were more likely to claim that their distress was due to racial discrimination perpetrated by the psychiatric services and society in general. The white patients were more likely to attribute perceived discrimination to their mental illness.Conclusion: this mismatch of explanatory models between black patients and their doctors may account for some inequalities in their treatment, their relative non‐engagement and adverse outcome.Declaration of interest: none.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".