Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text examines the fads and fallacies, both past and present, that have plagued psychiatric diagnosis, treatments and research. It argues that such practices have led to an over-diagnosis of conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, PTSD and autism. It examines the over-treatment of psychiatric disorders with pharmaceuticals, and asks if neuroscience will actually hold the answers to the biggest questions in the field. Thoroughly updated in light of new research, this new edition addresses some of the more recent developments in psychiatry, including behavioural genetics, genome-wide association studies, and brain imaging. It looks at new advances in psychotherapies and argues for a broad biopsychosocial model. The book will inform psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, other mental health professionals, and medical students of the limits of mental health practice and the importance of adopting cautious conservatism and the principles of evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".