The National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Institute of Mental Health is actively promoting Research Domain Criteria as a new model for the research on mental disorders. Research Domain Criteria approaches disorders through a matrix, linking units of analysis with domains, based on the assumption that psychopathology reflects abnormal connectivity in the brain. This review suggests that the Research Domain Criteria perspective is likely to fail to provide an adequate basis for clinical psychiatric theory and practice. First, it uses models from neuroscience that are insufficiently developed. Second, it is based on the premise that mental phenomena and mental disorders can be reduced to neural activity, without consideration of cognition, experience, and social interaction. Third, it downplays psychosocial factors in psychopathology and treatment. Research Domain Criteria may therefore prove inadequate for providing a neuroscientific basis for psychiatric nosology and treatment and needs to be supplemented with a broader view that incorporates insights from social sciences, psychology, and phenomenology.
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 | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".