Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) in order to bring America's clinical professionals in concert with the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classifications, notably the ICD-10-CM. This effort was met with considerable resistance and changes were delayed until November 2015. Major social-cultural differences between the United States and its European and other North American partners (Canada and Mexico) poses challenges in critical forensic areas such as the clinical/legal assessment of death qualified offenders – a status unique to the USA. Objective/aims To articulate the clinical/legal differences between the previous DSM's (III; III-R; IV) and the DSM-5 and how the new language provides greater ambiguity in defining the mental status requirements for Mens Rea – competence to understand one's actions. Methods Present the major legal issues surrounding the US death penalty and brought before the US Supreme Court including: Furman v. Georgia (1972); Greg v. Georgia (1976); Jared v. Texas (1976); Proffit v. Florida (1976); Adkins v. Virginia (2002); Roper v. Simmons (2005); Miller v. Alabama (2012): … and legislative actions such as Rosa's Law (Public Law 111-256; 2010). Results/conclusions Advocacy groups pushed Rosa's Law to mental retardation with – intellectual and developmental disability. This change is reflected in the DSM-5 whereby mental retardation (MR) was once relegated to axis II, is now classified under intellectual disabilities (ID) given the impression that it is a transitory (correctable) and not a fix (organ disability) clinical condition. Disclosure of interest The author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".