Schizophrenia, narrative, and neurocognition: The utility of life-stories in understanding social problem-solving skills.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia researchers have focused on phenomenological aspects of the disorder to better understand its underlying nature. In particular, development of personal narratives-that is, the complexity with which people form, organize, and articulate their "life stories"-has recently been investigated in individuals with schizophrenia. However, less is known about how aspects of narrative relate to indicators of neurocognitive and social functioning. The objective of the present study was to investigate the association of linguistic complexity of life-story narratives to measures of cognitive and social problem-solving abilities among people with schizophrenia. METHOD: Thirty-two individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia completed a research battery consisting of clinical interviews, a life-story narrative, neurocognitive testing, and a measure assessing multiple aspects of social problem solving. Narrative interviews were assessed for linguistic complexity using computerized technology. RESULTS: The results indicate differential relationships of linguistic complexity and neurocognition to domains of social problem-solving skills. More specifically, although neurocognition predicted how well one could both describe and enact a solution to a social problem, linguistic complexity alone was associated with accurately recognizing that a social problem had occurred. In addition, linguistic complexity appears to be a cognitive factor that is discernible from other broader measures of neurocognition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Linguistic complexity may be more relevant in understanding earlier steps of the social problem-solving process than more traditional, broad measures of cognition, and thus is relevant in conceptualizing treatment targets. These findings also support the relevance of developing narrative-focused psychotherapies. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".