The history of nosology and the rise of the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 arose from a tradition filled with haphazard science and politically driven choices. The nosology of modern psychiatry began with the German classifiers of the late 19th century, especially Emil Kraepelin. Psychoanalysis then blotted out the classificatory vision for the next half-century, and most of this European psychopathological science failed to cross the Atlantic. The DSM series was a homegrown American product, beginning with Medical 203 in 1945, then guided by psychoanalytic insights through DSM-I in 1952 and DSM-II in 1968. In 1980, DSM-III represented a massive "turning of the page" in nosology, and it had the effect of steering psychoanalysis toward the exit in psychiatry and the beginning of a reconciliation of psychiatry with the rest of medicine. With the advent of DSM-5, however, questions are starting to be asked about whether this massive venture is on the right track.
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 | 0.044 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".