Cultural variations in psychosis: Recent research and clinical implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
dedicated to understanding the role of culture in the expression and treatment of psychotic symptoms. While many clinicians and researchers view psychotic disorders as brain diseases firmly rooted in neurological processes and requiring medical treatments to resolve, the papers in this issue propose something different: that psychotic symptoms are refracted through the lens of culture with the result being socially and culturally constructed disorders that have as much to do with the attitudes and knowledge systems of the observer as the lived experience of patients. Hence, expression of psychotic symptoms and disorders represent the result of a negotiated space between individual distress and the values and norms of the wider society. This thematic issue touches on several important points: critical perspectives of high rates of psychosis in migrants, the lack of culturally adapted research and clinical tools in psychosis work, new methods to engage people with psychosis from diverse backgrounds, and cultural issues related to the etiology of psychosis, interpretation of symptoms, and help-seeking. There remain many important topics at the intersection of culture and psychosis not covered by this thematic issue, including stigma and psychosis, delusion formation in cultural context, the history of psychosis concepts, and insight in psychosis. Yet, despite these omissions, the articles in this issue, as a whole, foster recognition of the limits of standard approaches to psychosis and advocate for culturally adapted assessments and interventions, which if implemented from a position of cultural humility, carry the long-term potential of revolutionizing the field.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".