Clinical Course of Affective Disorders: Were Emil Kraepelin and Jules Angst Wrong?
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
Returning to the original problem of 'correcting' the earlier findings, it appears that it is not a question of who is right and who is wrong. Kraepelin outlined, and Angst clearly specified, the basic characteristics of the clinical course of unipolar and bipolar affective disorders which unfolds in patients without other pre-existing psychiatric disorders and which is typically episodic. The criteria for diagnosis applied not only cross-sectionally but also longitudinally. Recent studies, on the other hand, have put more emphasis on the standardized cross-sectional approach, and deal with a much broader population in which episodes of affective syndromes develop mainly on the basis of preexisting and chronic psychiatric disturbance, with more frequent recurrences and cycling. In a nutshell, Kraepelin and Angst provided us with a natural history of affective disorders whereas recent studies provide us with the clinical course of a broadly defined cluster of affective syndromes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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