Additional evidence for a quantitative hierarchical model of mood and anxiety disorders for DSM-V: The context of personality structure.
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
Recent progress toward the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders includes a proposed quantitative hierarchical structure of internalizing pathology with substantial, supportive evidence (D. Watson, 2005). Questions about such a taxonomic shift remain, however, particularly regarding how best to account for and use existing diagnostic categories and models of personality structure. In this study, the authors use a large sample of psychiatric patients with internalizing diagnoses (N = 1,319) as well as a community sample (N = 856) to answer some of these questions. Specifically, the authors investigate how the diagnoses of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and bipolar disorder compare with the other internalizing categories at successive levels of the personality hierarchy. Results suggest unique profiles for bipolar disorder and OCD and highlight the important contribution of a 5-factor model of personality in conceptualizing internalizing pathology. Implications for personality-psychopathology models and research on personality structure are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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