MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737354000 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000116

Capgras Syndrome in the Modern Era: Self Misidentification on an ID Picture

2005· letter· en· W2737354000 on OpenAlex
Sylvain Grignon, Mikaël Trottier

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlanzapinePsychiatryRisperidoneCapgras SyndromeAnxietyPsychologyParanoiaIdeationDepression (economics)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicineDelusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor: While living in a supervised apartment, Ms KL, aged 31 years, was hospitalized for a psychotic relapse in the course of undifferentiated schizophrenia. At admission, she presented with intense delusional (mostly persecutory) ideation, auditory hallucinations, severe anxiety, and mild depression. Her behaviour was grossly disorganized, and she required close supervision to tend to daily life activities. Her drug treatment was changed from risperidone 4 mg daily to olanzapine 30 mg daily, which elicited a partial symptom remission. Further improvement occurred with the addition of venlafaxin 225 mg daily, but she remained symptomatic and severely impaired, which led to the discussion and proposal of clozapine treatment, an option that, as of this report, she has refused. During the course of the olanzapine and venlafaxin treatment, the patient presented with a new clinical relapse, including notably increased persecutory ideation and different components of Capgras syndrome. First, she discarded her health insurance (RAMQ) plastic card because she thought that its photograph was not her own and, more specifically, because she did not recognize her nose. Of note, the patient had held this card for years without particular concern. When rechallenged with the photograph, she still contended that it had been replaced or tampered with and did not recognize her face. second, she also discarded various personal objects (such as her satchel, clothes, toilet items, and magazines) because she was convinced that they were not hers. She retrospectively admitted that she had already done so in the past; however, this behaviour was not active in the hospital before her relapse. Third, she became suspicious of her roommate, although with fluctuating conviction, because she thought that the latter had been replaced by someone charged with killing her. While the second and third symptoms are fairly classic, this case adds the plastic ID card, a highly meaningful feature of contemporary life, to the long list of objects (in a broad sense) misidentified in Capgras syndrome: it stands at the limit of object (in a narrow sense), face, and self-recognition. Moreover, the quality of most ID photographs is poor (which was admittedly particularly pronounced in the present case), and the patient was therefore presented with a degraded picture, the recognition of which is notably difficult for patients with schizophrenia. Because we had the opportunity to assess the occurrence of Capgras syndrome in an emerging state, we would also like to speculate on its clinical course in patients with schizophrenia. …

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 categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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