The Continuum Between Temperament and Mental Illness as Dynamical Phases and Transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full range of biopsychosocial complexity is mind-boggling, spanning a vast range of spatiotemporal scales with complicated vertical, horizontal, and diagonal feedback interactions between contributing systems. It is unlikely that such complexity can be dealt with by a single model. One approach is to focus on a narrower range of phenomena which involve fewer systems but still cover the range of spatiotemporal scales. The suggestion is to focus on the relationship between temperament in healthy individuals and mental illness, which have been conjectured to lie along a continuum of neurobehavioral regulation involving neurochemical regulatory systems (e.g., monoamine and acetylcholine, opiate receptors, neuropeptides, oxytocin), and cortical regulatory systems (e.g., prefrontal, limbic). Temperament and mental illness are quintessentially dynamical phenomena, and need to be addressed in dynamical terms. A meteorological metaphor suggests similarities between temperament and chronic mental illness and climate, between individual behaviors and weather, and acute mental illness and frontal weather events. The transition from normative temperament to chronic mental illness is analogous to climate change. This leads to the conjecture that temperament and chronic mental illness describe distinct, high level, dynamical phases. This suggests approaching biopsychosocial complexity through the study of dynamical phases, their order and control parameters, and their phase transitions. Unlike transitions in physical systems, these biopsychosocial phase transitions involve information and semiotics. The application of complex adaptive dynamical systems theory has led to a host of markers including geometrical markers (periodicity, intermittency, recurrence, chaos) and analytical markers such as fluctuation spectroscopy, scaling, entropy, recurrence time. Clinically accessible biomarkers, in particular heart rate variability and activity markers have been suggested to distinguish these dynamical phases and to signal the presence of transitional states. A particular formal model of these dynamical phases will be presented based upon the process algebra, which has been used to model information flow in complex systems. In particular it describes the dual influences of energy and information on the dynamics of complex systems. The process algebra model is well-suited for dealing with the particular dynamical features of the continuum, which include transience, contextuality, and emergence. These dynamical phases will be described using the process algebra model and implications for clinical practice will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".