MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490234851

Talking about the DSM-V

2012· article· en· W2490234851 on OpenAlex
Tom Strong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject commissioningPublishingStrict constructionismNarrativePsychologyWork (physics)DSM-5SociologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPsychiatryComputer scienceLawLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition; DSM-V) is nearing publication, despite considerable controversies over its development. In this paper I provide a critical historical review of developments associated with the DSM-V, particularly as these developments relate to the practices of narrative and other constructionist practitioners. I relate the findings of recently completed research in which practitioners shared how they responded to the influence of the current DSM-IV-TR on their conversations with clients, along with ways they creatively responded to that influence. I close with suggestions for practitioners who live with administrative expectations that they use DSM-V diagnoses in their conversational work.This article is based on a paper presented to the Therapeutic Conversations X Conference, Vancouver, Canada May 12, 2012.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.317 · 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