Physicians’ Constructions of Depression: Inside/Outside the Boundaries of Medicalization
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
A qualitative study explored primary care physicians' experiences of diagnosing and treating depression. Twenty physicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Interview questions asked physicians to consider a range of topics such as the etiology of depression, the diagnostic process and treatment of depression. Transcripts were analyzed discursively with a view to exploring the ways in which physicians construct depression. In this article, physicians' constructions of depression are examined through exploration of their descriptions of this condition, as well as their recognition of the social context of depression. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that physicians' medicalized understandings of depression conflict with recognition of the social context of depression. The result of this conflict is dissonant descriptions of depression. One implication of this research is that physicians' training would benefit from the integration of multidisciplinary perspectives on depression, which would better reflect physicians' experiences in routine practice situations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it