Bibliographic record
Abstract
The terms somatization and conversion are used descriptively to define specific diagnostic entities, and phenomenologically to denote pathologic processes that underlie somatic symptom formation. There is a lack of clarity, and even controversy, however, as to whether somatization and conversion should be considered distinct or overlapping constructs, and whether they contribute to the pathogenesis of certain organic diseases or solely to medically unexplained somatic symptoms. This article attempts to resolve some of this confusion by reviewing the origins of the terms somatization and conversion, and describing how their meanings and uses have evolved over the last century. Whereas some psychoanalysts and psychiatrists adopted Stekel's view that somatization involves a psychological process analogous to conversion, others maintained Freud's distinction between the psychoneuroses and the actual neuroses and view somatization as a physiological process. Recent psychoanalytic attempts to understand somatization are based on a modern theory of emotional processing, which is rooted in cognitive science and open to empirical research. Maintaining a conceptual distinction between somatization and conversion has important implications for psychoanalytic therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".