Reconceptualizing mental disorders: From symptoms to organs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most mental pathologies are diagnosed on the sole basis of the symptoms reported by patients, such as "I'm feeling low." The thrust of this paper is the proposal to reconceptualize mental disorders as dysfunctions of brain subsystems. This shift from symptom to organ would bring psychiatry in line with the rest of medicine, and is analogous to the change in status of venereal infections from skin pathologies, such as chancres, to bacterial infections. The proposal in question is part of the reconceptualization of mental processes as brain processes, in line with the materialist conception of the mind as neural. A practical advantage of this conceptual change is that it suggests approaching mental disorders as brain dysfunctions treatable by biological and chemical means, in addition to social measures, such as accommodating mental patients in ordinary hospitals rather than in isolated "madhouses" at the mercy of amateurs or even charlatans. An additional advantage of the "embodiment" of mental diseases is that it suggests reframing some new research projects, such as explaining why the common cold causes mental fogginess, why hypertension can cause irritability, and why nicotine dependence can be even stronger than cocaine addiction. In other words, the present proposal is to complete the so-called "mapping of the mind onto the brain" by including the abnormal mental processes, which used to be treated by shamans at a time when the mind was conceived of as an immaterial entity detachable from the body.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".