Evaluation of Droperidol in the Acutely Agitated Child or Adolescent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
fa cil ity and fre quency of their meas urement, this "un pleas ant state" could be spe ciously la belled as anxi ety or dys pho ria.The per son al ity theo ries of Hor ney (18) and Rogers (19) are ger mane.Hor ney's "neu rotic pride" and "tyr anny of shoulds" en tail the dif fer ence be tween the de spised real self and the ide al ized self-image.Rogers' self-actual and self-ideal dis crep ancy is analo gous.Cog ni tive ther apy pio neers (20,21) essen tially took this path, high light ing the ir ra tional sanc tion ing of strin gent lev els of com pe tence and fault less ness, followed by a criti cal in ter nal dia logue when the in evi ta ble fail ure to match them is weighed.This con tem po ra ne ous dis tress was ex pressed in terms of anxiety and de pres sion.Per fec tion ists, ob ses sional per son alities, and many yearn ing psy cho ther apy cli ents with di verse pre sent ing prob lems of ten ex pe ri ence fluc tu at ing lev els of an un pleas ant state of as cen dent anxi ety.The lack of a word for this is a gap in the psy cho logi cal lexi con, lead ing to circum lo cu tion.Hor ney's and Rogers's terms may be too pro prie tary to their theo ries and too trait-like.Anxi ety is over gen eral, and con notes ti mid ity; as a dis cus sion about the item con tent of a com monly used psy cho met ric scale high lights, it is usu ally used to em phasize physio logi cal overa rousal, rather than as a per sis tent long ing for selfelevation (22).The noun yumpity, (adjec tive, yumpi tous or yump tious), is offered as a po ten tial so lu tion.Hav ing a word for as cen dent anxi ety-the discom fort ing sub jec tive state of per fection ism-could as sist in the de vel op ment of par si mo ni ous cog ni tive mod els of OCD.It is com fort ing, too, for pa tients, if there is a name for their distress (23).
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".