FC20-02 - Psychiatric consultations with indigenous peoples: Differences in beliefs about mind and mental health and lessons learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American people have different beliefs about mind and mental health than conventional biomedicine. The author reports the results of 300 consecutive psychiatric consultations in Northern Canada during which he characterized the particular beliefs of his consultees. In their views, disease is located in relationships, including relationships with family members, with food (plants and animals), minerals, other people, spirits, the environment, and more. When these relationships are distorted and out of balance, dis-ease ensues. Traditional healers see the changes found in autopsies as footprints of the illness and not the illness itself. From this perspective, traditional healers engage in very different diagnostic procedures than conventional physicians. They seek the areas of disharmony and imbalance in relationships rather than looking for diseases in physical tissues. From this point of view, each person becomes their own story about their suffering and the treatment relates to that story as it unfolds to all the stakeholders in that story. The treatment becomes a story that merges with the illness-person story to move in a direction of balance and harmony. Every treatment is different because every person is different. There is no treatment for arthritis, only for the individual people who suffer. In this presentation, we will consider how to practice psychiatry within this environment, including the matching of biomedical stories to traditional stories and the negotiation of treatment approaches in such a manner as to maximize respect for traditional belief systems and also to optimize potential for outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".