From Ancestral Knowledge to Clinical Practice: The Case of <em>Agonias</em> and Portuguese Clinicians in America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultures have varying notions about symptom expression and the treatment of mental health issues. Consequently, clients and psychotherapists may or may not share a similar worldview. In the psychotherapy literature there has been increased attention to these complex processes. This survey descriptive study aims to understand how therapists working with culturally diverse clients incorporate sensitivity to cultural differences. Fifteen culturally sensitive mental health care providers working with the Portuguese immigrant community were interviewed about their practices. Specifically, we investigated their understanding of the symptoms, causes and cures for agonias, a culture specific phenomenon. It was found that even though the providers are all Portuguese themselves, the meaning that they ascribed to agonias (anxiety and/or depression) was very different than the meaning ascribed to agonias by community members. The community member’s meanings ranged from indigestion to being on the brink of death. A cluster analysis revealed that clinicians who stated that agonias is anxiety, conducted cognitive behavioral therapy or psychopharmacology, and those that stated agonias had a depressive component tended to use family therapy or psychoanalysis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".