Anatomy of a debacle: Commentary on “Seeking clarity for future revisions of the personality disorders in DSM-5”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comments on an article by Gunderson (see record 2013-45025-012). Gunderson's article describes how the process of revision for the personality disorder (PD) section of DSM-5 created opposition and missed a real opportunity for useful change. The current author remarks that a dysfunctional committee came up with a proposal that no one liked, and that was (rightly) rejected in December 2012. The outcome can only be called a debacle. But this debacle was well-deserved. As Gunderson has shown, consultation was minimal, and an agenda was imposed from outside on an unwilling research community. The hope that members of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) still retain-that this proposal, now confined to Section III of the manual, could be the basis for the next set of revisions-is forlorn. We have to start all over again, and Gunderson has suggested some ways we might do so.
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 | 0.012 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.055 | 0.064 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".