Bibliographic record
Abstract
A poster recently appeared on some streets in Ultra-Orthodox (Hareidi) neighborhoods of Jerusalem calling on passers-by to beware ‘The Danger of Psychologists! ’ In slightly smaller typeface, the poster warns that visits to psychologists by adults (or by children in special education programs) are likely to endanger their belief in principles of faith such as free will and just recompense, or in the existence of God. Especially emphatic is the poster’s denunciation of the ‘the subconscious ’ as a dangerous heresy. At stake is a binary conception, in which ‘free will ’ is defined so as to preclude the mediation of factors extraneous to the surface-level, choice-making faculties. Thus, the stark insistence of the message: ‘There is no subcon-scious – there is only God. ’ Under these circumstances, one can appreciate the circumspection with which clinicians like Witztum, Goodman and their colleagues approach the problem of community mental health care for the Hareidi population in Jerusalem, and their thoughtfulness concern-ing its theoretical underpinning. At the same time, there is much in their account to leave an anthropological reader uneasy. At the heart of Witztum and Goodman’s ‘narrative construction ’ model is a strategic juxtaposition of ‘different epistemological perpsectives without any attempt to reduce one to the other. ’ These perspectives are summarized as: (1) ‘the narrative in cultural terms, ’ which indicates the presenting problem as described by the patient himself (i.e. persecution by a demon); (2) ‘circumstances, ’ which apparently refer to the therapists’ evaluation of the event that ‘triggered ’ the onset of symptoms (i.e. Vol 36(4): 437–445[1363–4615(199912)36:4;437–445;010568] Copyright © 1999 McGill University transcultural psychiatry
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.349 | 0.124 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".