MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W324524730 · doi:10.1177/070674370605101210

Book Review: Schizophrenia: Mind, Brain, and Schizophrenia

2006· article· en· W324524730 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mary V. Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyPsychiatryPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

has been studying schizophrenia for over 20 years and has thoughtfully assembled the field's current knowledge as to what schizophrenia is and is not.Early in the book, he makes an analogy to heart failure, observing that edema and shortness of breath characterize heart failure but that the causes can be many and varied and may not necessarily originate in the heart.So, too, the symptoms of schizophrenia can be variously looked on as brain failure-failure of the brain to synthesize the information it perceives, to appreciate it affectively, to distinguish between self-generated stimuli and stimuli coming from outside, or to create meaning out of perception and to remember it.Like the multiple causes of heart failure, there are probably a multitude of causes for brain failure and Dr Williamson leads the reader through the many possibilities.He strongly suggests setting aside the search for a single cause.Because the final result is brain failure, understanding how the brain works is essential to understanding schizophrenia.The author believes, and I believe he is right, that psychiatrists know too little about the brain.Despite advances in molecular genetics, neuropsychology, neurochemistry, and

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207