Toward an Interdependent Conception of the Self: Implications for Canadian Policy Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores three ways of conceptualising the self and the implications of these various conceptions on mental health and the treatment of mental illness. First, I explicate the egocentric view, which is predominantly assumed by Canadian doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Second, I consider an ecocentric approach adopted by some traditional Inuit people. Third, I describe a sociocentric conception, typically upheld by Syrians. I argue that, in order to treat mental disorders in Syrian refugees in Canada more appropriately and effectively, Canadian healthcare providers must avoid imposing the egocentric view and seek to understand their patients’ mental health in terms of a sociocentric conception of the self. I make policy recommendations that emerge from an understanding of the sociocentric conception which, if implemented, would help prevent, ameliorate, and remedy mental health difficulties for Syrian refugees.
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 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".