Toward Developing a Scale to Empirically Measure Psychotic Defense Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, research on psychological processes has greatly advanced our understanding of various psychopathologies. Defense mechanisms, for example, have been described as observable phenomena, and studies have shown meaningful relationships among these processes and other measurable dimensions of health and illness. Despite some notable exceptions, one area that has been overlooked is the empirical study of defenses in psychotic disorders. This is in part due to the lack of valid instruments measuring psychotic-level defenses. Propadeutic to creating an empirical scale for measuring psychotic defenses, the psychoanalytic and empirical literature on psychotic defenses is reviewed, after which the concept of psychotic defenses as measured by the P-DMRS (Psychotic-Defense Mechanism Rating Scales)--which can be used independently or in combination with the current DMRS (Defense Mechanism Rating Scales)--is operationalized. Finally, current research directions applying the P-DMRS to the clinical setting are presented, as well as its implications for guiding current clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".