MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

At Issue: Impact of the Term Schizophrenia on the Culture of Ideograph: The Japanese Experience

2001· article· en· W2117938935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yejin Kim, G. E. Berrios

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Center of Neurology and Psychiatry
KeywordsAutonomySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Informed consentMeaning (existential)Term (time)DiseasePsychologyPsychiatryQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationPersonal autonomyMedicinePsychotherapistLawAlternative medicinePolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ideographic Chinese writing system (in use in Asian countries that account for about a quarter of the world's population) directly expresses the meaning of schizophrenia as "the disease of disorganized mind." The term directly challenges a deeply ingrained concept of personal autonomy, and this is stigmatizing. Japanese psychiatrists are thus reluctant to tell their patients that they are suffering from schizophrenia, and, as a result, no more than 20 percent of sufferers actually do know about their diagnosis. Because taking medication is based on informed consent and the exercise of the patient's autonomy, such lack of information has important negative effects. It is unlikely that this problem can be resolved by education or information alone, and it may well be the case that in cultures using ideographs, the illness will need to be renamed. This article suggests some alternatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207