MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308964144 · doi:10.32388/b0ixot

Centripetal versus Centrifugal Trends in Social and Cultural Psychiatry: A Conceptual Analysis

2022· preprint· en· W4308964144 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo Di Nicola

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSociologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Drawing on the history of social psychiatry (SP) and cultural psychiatry (CP), the author offers a way to discern the distinguishing features and identity of each branch of psychiatry. Issues: Are the histories and current practices of CP and SP mutually compatible and enriching or are they hiving off into separate domains? Proposition: A schema will be presented for differentiating underlying assumptions and core features of these two allied but increasingly differentiated fields of psychiatry. Key domains include: _core arguments/dynamics_ (CP’s critiques of Western psychiatry lead to negation of its claim to universality; SP’s documentation of social determinants of health (SDH/MH) affords the affirmation of SDH/MH across societies and over time); _foci_ (CP addresses race and ethnicity; SP investigates class and social structure); _allied fields_ (CP – medical anthropology; SP – medical sociology, epidemiology & public health); _metaphors_ (CP – “prism”/refracting; SP – “creolization”/blending); _values_ (CP - diversity/equity; SP - solidarity/commonality); _research _(CP - ethnographies, CFI; SP - epidemiology, SDH/MH); _allied professional movements/outgrowths_ (CP - Global Mental Health; SP - community psychiatry); _allied populist movements_ (CP - Black Lives Matter; SP – “Gilets jaunes”); and, _critiques_ (CP/GMH - eg, China Mills; SP – “southern epistemologies,” the Global South). Outcomes: Cumulative results of the two allied traditions, sometimes practiced by the same/overlapping research teams, are discussed under the rubric “centripetal” (convergent, unifying, integrating) versus “centrifugal” (divergent, separating, dispersing) impacts. Implications: The disparate methods and results of CP/SP reflect diverse foundational discourses of these increasingly differentiated fields. CP has morphed into a study of Dostoyevsky’s “the insulted and the injured” imbued with a liberal, progressive ideology, culminating in identity politics. Meanwhile, social class, the signal critical tool of everything social, from sociology to socialism and SP, is being supplanted by a focus on culture. The author will invite debate on what this means for the future of CP & SP and whether a synthesis is still possible.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.055
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→