MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248285259 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200411

Book Review: General Psychiatry: The Self in Neuroscience and Psychiatry

2007· article· en· W248285259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joy Albuquerque

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial neuroscienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Clinical neurosciencePsychoanalysisCognitive neuroscienceCognitionPsychology of selfPerspective (graphical)Phenomenology (philosophy)Cognitive scienceSocial cognitionNeurosciencePsychiatryEpistemologyPhilosophyNeurologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of the self has been an active topic of inquiry and debate since ancient times.Reflecting the complex questions arising from investigations into this area, The Self in Neuroscience and Psychiatry integrates contributions from specialists in the social sciences, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychiatry.Editors Tilo Kircher and Anthony David take a unique angle by focusing on self-representation in schizophrenia, a condition that has a disturbed sense of self at its core.The book is a compilation of 22 essays divided into 3 sections: "Conceptual Background," "Cognitive and Neurosciences," and "Disturbances of the Self: The Case of Schizophrenia."This final section is subdivided into an additional 3 areas: "Phenomenology," "Social Psychology," and "Clinical Neuroscience."While there is unavoidable overlap and repetition between some papers, the essays have distinct perspectives and address specific questions; therefore, any reiteration tends to improve cohesiveness rather than act as a detractor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.032

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207