MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141256891 · doi:10.1002/jts.20443

Reformulating PTSD for<i>DSM‐V</i>: Life after Criterion A

2009· article· en· W2141256891 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Traumatic Stress · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPosttraumatic stressDSM-5Focus (optics)NosologyPsychiatryCore (optical fiber)PsychotherapistClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder has been criticized on numerous grounds, but principally for three reasons (a) the alleged pathologizing of normal events, (b) the inadequacy of Criterion A, and (c) symptom overlap with other disorders. The authors review these problems along with arguments why the diagnosis is nevertheless worth retaining in an amended form. A proposal for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) is put forward that involves abolishing Criterion A, narrowing the B criteria to focus on the core phenomena of flashbacks and nightmares, and narrowing the C and D criteria to reduce overlap with other disorders. The potential advantages and disadvantages of this formulation are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.332 · 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