MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928824270 · doi:10.1192/bja.2019.12

Dissociative identity disorder: validity and use in the criminal justice system

2019· article· en· W2928824270 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersJewish General Hospital
KeywordsInsanityDissociative identity disorderPsychologyDeclarationIdentity (music)PsychiatryClinical psychologyCriminologyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This review examines whether the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (DID) could be used to support a defence of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ (NGRI, or the insanity defence). The problem is that DID has doubtful validity and can easily be malingered. However, the diagnosis is listed in standard psychiatric manuals. If accepted as valid, DID would have problematic forensic implications. LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading this article you will be able to: • understand the history of the DID diagnosis • evaluate the validity of the DID diagnosis • appreciate, from case law, use of DID in support of an insanity defence. DECLARATION OF INTEREST None.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.302 · 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