The Social Causes of Psychosis in North American Psychiatry: A Review of a Disappearing Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the North American literature with respect to the role of social factors in the etiology of psychosis, including schizophrenia. METHOD: Relevant publications were identified through a search of MEDLINE from 1966 to 2006. Identified studies and articles had to originate in Canada or the United States to be included in the review. Articles written prior to 1966 were identified by cross-referencing bibliographies and reference lists. Articles were considered relevant if they discussed ethnoracial or other social factors as being causal or contributing to the development of psychosis or schizophrenia. RESULTS: The relation between the etiology of psychosis and such social factors as poverty, migration, and racial discrimination has been neglected in the North American psychiatric literature for the last 40 years. In Canada and the United States, there is a dearth of research on these issues: the study of social causes of psychosis has been replaced by a focus on the clinical encounter, in which clinician bias is presumed to be responsible for widespread misdiagnosis of psychosis in minority (mainly African-American) populations. The reasons for neglecting social causes of psychosis in the North American psychiatric literature are obscure but may have to do with the rise of genetic-biological paradigms in recent decades. CONCLUSIONS: The neglect of social causes of psychosis in the North American psychiatric literature has been coincident with an increase in scholarly concern among European clinicians and researchers. Careful reading of the European literature may reveal helpful avenues for future investigation in the North American context. In addition, drawing on social science literature and methods may help to clarify mechanisms underlying poverty, migration, and racial discrimination that contribute to psychosis in vulnerable individuals and groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".