Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugees coming from war-torn areas sometimes face misunderstanding and frank incredulity when they encounter the psychiatric system. This failure of the clinical imagination reflects both reluctance to confront the enormity of patients' loss and cultural differences in self-presentation, self-understanding, memory and identity. This potential for incredulity is redoubled in the formal hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) where the claim for refugee status is adjudicated. Contemporary psychiatric practice is rooted in taking patients' stories at face value as accounts of their experience or reading through them to identify signs and symptoms of psychopathology. From this perspective any account reveals both the narrator's shifting experiential world and the current functioning of their cognitive machinery. Truth is 'experiential truth' and is relative to the narrator's social position, mental health and emotional state. In contrast, the IRB assesses the narrative of asylum seekers against the notion of a truthful story as fixed and isomorphic to a single historical sequence of events. From the perspective of the IRB members, any deviation from this fixed account is evidence of dissimulation designed to claim the valued status of refugee. The conflicting epistemologies of clinical psychiatry and the refugee hearing throw into relief the functions of social imagination in the construction, interpretation and assessment of the truth-value of narratives of identity and affliction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".