MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803208454 · doi:10.1177/0022167818777655

Reconciling Conversational Handles With Scientific and Administrative Classifications? A Response to Jon Raskin

2018· article· en· W2803208454 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanistic Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReification (Marxism)EpistemologyStrict constructionismSociologyFocus (optics)PsychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appreciative of Jon Raskin’s invitation to develop alternatives to the DSM-5 diagnostic system, I share my concerns about systematization and reification that can come with any diagnostic system, through its subsequent research and administrative use. Focusing specifically on nonsevere and relational concerns (aspects of Arendt’s “human condition”), I share three alternative approaches to diagnosis. I also draw on my background as family therapist and social constructionist practitioner to focus on resourceful language use in the conversational work of therapy.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Humanistic PsychologySame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207