MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331734252 · doi:10.2174/157340012803520496

The Risk That DSM 5 Will Exacerbate the SVP Mess in Forensic Psychiatry

2012· article· en· W2331734252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Allen Frances

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Psychiatry Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsParaphiliaForensic scienceDSM-5PsychologyPsychiatrySexual abuseParasomniaForensic psychiatryPoison controlClinical psychologySuicide preventionMedicineMedical emergencySexual behaviorElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The imprecise wording of DSM-IV led to an abusive use of the Paraphilia NOS diagnosis to hospitalize sexual predators for indefinite periods of time through Sexually Violent Predator statues. DSM-5 has threatened to compound the error of DSM-IV through the addition of three diagnosis that invite forensic abuse: ‘coercive paraphilia’, ‘hypersexuality’, and ‘hebephilia’. This article reviews that status of those three diagnoses, as well as the arguments for excluding them from the new manual. Keywords: DSM-5, Paraphilias, Paraphilias in DSM-5, Sexually violent predator statutes, Paraphilic coercive disorder, Paraphilic coercive disorder in DSM-5, NOS diagnosis, predators, forensic abuse, hebephilia, egregious, idiosyncratic, forensic, incarceration

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.238
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.238
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0100.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Psychiatry ReviewsSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207