Judgements of responsibility and mind brain dualism in clinical psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the phenomenon of mind-brain dualism in contemporary Western psychiatry from an anthropological and social psychological perspective. In a first chapter, it reports on an empirical study involving 127 staff psychiatrists and psychologists at McGill University who responded to a questionnaire based on clinical vignettes. Results revealed a latent process of judging patients' responsibility for illness, where the more a behavioural problem was seen as 'psychological,' the more the patients tended to be viewed as responsible and blameworthy for their symptoms, while behaviours with 'neurobiological' causes showed the opposite tendency. A second chapter reviews the history of psychosomatic medicine and argues that specific biomedical and psychological sick roles exist for patients that determine the ways in which their actions are judged, as well as how the functions of the rational mind are commonly understood. Insights from evolutionary psychology are used in a third chapter to speculate on new models of mental illness that may provide new contexts for negotiating mind-brain dualism and judgements of responsibility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".