Use of an Expanded Version of the <i>DSM-IV</i> Outline for Cultural Formulation on a Cultural Consultation Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed cultural consultants' impression of the utility of an expanded version of the DSM-IV Outline for Cultural Formulation in cultural psychiatric consultation and identified ways to improve the usefulness of the cultural formulation. METHODS: A structured interview and questionnaire on the use of the cultural formulation was administered to 60 consultants working for an outpatient Cultural Consultation Service (CCS). RESULTS: Most consultants (93%) found the cultural formulation to be moderately to very useful. More than half (57%) had little or no familiarity with the cultural formulation before working with the CCS. The main suggestions for improvement of the cultural formulation were to expand sections on migration experience and include sections on religious and spiritual practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although many consultants had little previous familiarity with the cultural formulation, most found it useful in organizing their assessment and preparing consultation reports. The cultural formulation is a useful tool for nonmedical consultants and culture brokers, as well as for clinicians.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".