Fundamentals and Main Provisions of the Functional-Procedural Concept of Mental Deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science still does not have a single scientifically sound concept of mental deprivation, which would explain its psychological essence, this mental phenomenon cannot be adequately assessed, or measures to prevent or eliminate negative mental phenomena it provoked cannot be developed. The article aims to reveal the basic principles and substantiate the main provisions of the functional-procedural concept of mental deprivation. Psycho-energetic and energy-psycho-functional approaches were used, as well as methods of analysis, synthesis, abstraction, specification, comparison, generalisation, and grouping of knowledge about the human psyche. The functional-procedural concept of mental deprivation of humans covers an interconnected system of provisions. According to them, mental deprivation is a course of more or less powerful destructive processes in the functioning of his psyche. Such processes arose from the destruction of mental parameters in various areas due to long-term unfulfilling necessary for normal functioning and development. The development of a functional-procedural concept of mental deprivation of a human will make it possible, first, to adequately define its essence and content in the scientific dimension as a phenomenon of the psyche; secondly, to assess its impact on the functioning of the whole psyche; third, to disclose the impact on development or its delay, actions, behaviour, and activities of an individual; fourth, to develop psychotherapeutic measures to prevent the occurrence of mental deprivation and eliminate its negative consequences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".