MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035085242 · doi:10.1111/ajsp.12413

Cultural models of normalcy and deviancy

2020· article· en· W3035085242 on OpenAlexaff
Yulia Chentsova-Dutton, Andrew G. Ryder

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal Of Social Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyUnderpinningMental healthDistressSocial psychologyEpistemologySociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we argue that the cultural models approach provides a useful framework for cultural‐clinical psychology. We begin with a brief review of this approach before presenting the distinction between cultural models for normalcy and deviancy. As well, we consider how both normalcy and deviancy can be culturally valorised or devalorised. Given that mental disorders do not always neatly fit with available cultural models, we offer evidence‐based examples of unscripted as well as scripted distress. We conclude by considering key hypothesis‐generating questions and some methodological approaches that could be used to improve and extend the evidence base underpinning the cultural models approach as applied to the study of culture and mental health.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal Of Social PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207