Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concebido e inicialmente desarrollado en los Estados Unidos, el Tratamiento Comunitario Asertivo (TCA) ha alcanzado notable importancia tambien en Canada, Suecia y el Reino Unido, y esta siendo implementado en un numero creciente de paises, entre ellos Espana. Aunque avalado por una solida evidencia cientifica de efectividad, el TCA ha sido objeto de critica por su intrusion en la esfera privada de las personas con problemas de salud mental. La literatura examinada sugiere que una relacion colaborativa entre profesionales y usuarios resulta apropiada tanto para la resolucion de los dilemas eticos planteados por el TCA como para la reintegracion social de las personas con una enfermedad mental grave. Tales objetivos requieren la activa participacion, dentro de los equipos de TCA, del trabajador social, profesional especificamente preparado para promover relaciones de empatia con el usuario de los servicios y para colaborar en su proceso de integracion de acuerdo a un modelo biopsicosocial de enfermedad mental.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".