Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Academic conceptualizations of psychosis often overlook its transformational potential. By situating it against a horizon of influential theoretical and conceptual models of psychosis including such integrative paradigms as the biopsychosocial model, this paper outlines American integral theorist Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant framework.Methods By drawing on several of Wilber’s primary works the author systematically explicates the major conceptual features of his four-quadrant framework before then using it to undertake an integral conceptualization of psychosis.Results Wilber’s framework can attune theorists as well as clinicians in the mental health field to the epistemological domains that are typically underemphasized in the conceptualization of psychosis. What Wilber calls an integral embrace is essential not only if the mental health field is going to do justice to the fact that psychosis can be transformative but also if it is going to effectively address the ethical issue of epistemic injustice. Because it insists on the embrace of individual and collective domains as well as subjective and objective in a disciplined manner, Wilber’s framework has advantages over the biopsychosocial model.Discussion Its systematic and structured nature as well as the fact that it valorizes multiple epistemic domains makes Wilber’s framework a suitable integrative paradigm for psychosis. Potential drawbacks include its drawing of a firm line of demarcation between subjective and objective as well as the fact that more complex versions of it possibly foreclose the possibility of imputing transformational significance to psychosis. Wilber’s framework has pragmatic usefulness in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".