MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312666061 · doi:10.1037/tra0000126

Dissociative complexity: Antecedents and clinical correlates of a new construct.

2016· article· en· W2312666061 on OpenAlexafffund
John Briere, Anne M. Dietrich, Randye J. Semple

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Society for Traumatic Stress Studies
KeywordsConstruct (python library)PsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To the extent that dissociation is a multidimensional phenomenon, and given a growing literature on complex posttraumatic outcomes, we hypothesized a new construct: dissociative complexity (DC). DC is defined as the tendency to simultaneously endorse multiple, relatively independent dissociative dimensions into their clinical ranges, and therefore represents the overall breadth or complexity of an individual's dissociative response. METHOD: DC was evaluated in general population and prison participants using the Multiscale Dissociation Inventory (MDI; Briere, 2002). RESULTS: DC was higher among prisoners and women, and, as hypothesized, was associated with cumulative trauma and serious comorbidities (suicidality and substance abuse), even when controlling for generally elevated dissociation. CONCLUSIONS: DC appears to be a meaningful clinical construct that is phenomenologically and empirically different from a unidimensional index of dissociative severity. DC may serve as a clinical marker for multiple trauma exposures, complex dissociative outcomes, and risk of problematic comorbidities. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and PolicySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207