Dissociative Experiences in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dissociative Experiences Scale was administered to a non-clinical sample in Shanghai, China (N = 618) and the results were compared with a previous sample of the general population from Winnipeg, Canada (N = 1055). The Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule was administered to the 618 Chinese participants and results were compared with those of the Canadian participants (N = 502). In addition, both measures were administered to a sample of Chinese psychiatric inpatients (N = 423) and outpatients (N = 304). Rates of childhood trauma and dissociation were far lower in the Chinese non-clinical sample than in the two Chinese psychiatric patient groups, and far lower than in the Canadian general population. Among the 618 respondents in the Chinese non-clinical sample, no childhood sexual abuse was reported and only one person reported childhood physical abuse. These rates of childhood abuse were far lower than in other non-clinical samples from China; for example, rates were 16.7% for sexual abuse of girls and 10.5% for sexual abuse of boys in a previous study. Among the more traumatized Chinese psychiatric patients, and among the Canadian respondents, dissociative experiences were much more common than in the Chinese general population. The data provide a base frequency for dissociation in non-clinical samples reporting little or no childhood physical and sexual abuse.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".