Re: The Prevalence of Psychological Morbidity in West Bank Palestinian Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor: We are writing to bring to your attention our concerns about the abovereferenced article (1). We believe that it is an example of the misuse of science to further a political agenda. Below we list a few of the significant scientific flaws we found our review of the article. Together, they raise questions about the integrity and credibility of the research. The authors hypothesize that encroachment caused what they characterized as psychological morbidity, but they did not define that term, measure it validly, or empirically test their hypothesis. Along with unsubstantiated anecdotal and observation, the authors cite only a political source (Noam Chomsky), not a scientific reference, to support their hypothesis. Although they assert that Palestinian children feared the Jewish settlement communities near the Bethlehem-area villages studied, they fail to cite a single documented case wherein Jewish residents were involved violence against children, and they ignore the documented evidence that children from a Palestinian school stoned hundreds of Israelis on a frequently travelled road the same area. The authors also fail to note the well-documented campaign of incitement to violence to which Palestinian children were exposed. That exposure bears directly on interpretation of the results and is a credible alternative explanation for the possible morbidity found. Although the authors report using the Arabic Rutter A2 scale for assessment of chidren's behaviour, the reference cited did not indicate that this instrument (2) had been standardized on a Palestinian Arab population. The scale is no longer used by Palestinian researchers (P Vostanis, personal communication, 2004 October 4). Other references cited did not address or support contentions the study. The authors cite a reference to support the claim that displacement and military occupation since 1948 have caused violent and psychological pressures. A check of the reference (3) finds that it did not study or support those contentions. The authors also cite a study (4) to support the contention that in the absence of direct traumatic events, poor psychological status may arise from anticipating such events (1, p 62), although the subjects of their study were clearly not, as our authors imply, living a period of relative calm. To summarize, the article contains numerous assertions not supported by the authors' own references, ignores available data that can explain the results, fails to define terms properly, and presents as conclusions unsubstantiated conjecture. None of the authors has a mental health background, and their use of references that do not support their statements calls their credibility into question. We are surprised that your editorial peer review process failed to find these errors. Mixing politics with science is a risky proposition, especially without solid evidence to support the conclusions reached. The complete analysis of the article is available at www.spme.net/Mansdorf 10_20_04.pdf We urge all to read it. References 1. Zakrison TL. Shahen A. Mortaja M, Hamel PA. The prevalence of psychological morbidity west bank Palestinian children. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49:60-3. 2. Rutter M. A children's behaviour questionnaire for completion by teachers: preliminary findings. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1967;8(I):1-11. 3. Baker AM. The psychological impact of the lntifada on Palestinian children the Occupied West Bank and Gaza: an exploratory study. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1990;60:494-505. 4. Thabet AA. Abed Y.Vostanis P. Emotional problems Palestinian children living a war zone: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 2002;359:1801-4. Scholars for Peace the Middle East (partial list of endorsers) Steven M Albert, PhD, MSc Phyllis Chesler, PhD Judith S Jacobson, DrPH Mitchell Kaplan, MD New York, New York Gustav J Beck, MD FACP, FCCP, FACAAI Gwynedd, Pennsylvania Edward S Beck, EdD, LPC Harrisburg, Pennsylvania John R Cohn, MD Paul Root Wolpe, PhD Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mag rer nat Dr Phil Ruth Contreras Vienna, Austria Stan Dubinsky, PhD Columbia, South Carolina Georges Gachnochi, MD Etampes, France Charles David Isbell, PhD Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mark S Kisclica, PhD Ewing, New Jersey Irwin J Mansdorf, PhD Raanana. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".