Description of cognitive-behavioral specialized units in France: results of a national investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a national survey, the SFGG's UCC Task Force worked and liaised with the DGOS as to establish a national inventory of the UCCs in France. 43 of the 55 newly opened UCCs in 2011 filled up the survey. These UCCs largely supported patients meeting the admission criteria's from the book of specifications edited by the public department. Those patients were demented, valid and with disruptive behavior disorders. Earnings for the stay were commonly measured by a reduced NPI (32 to 18). Body therapies, cognitive and sensory were mainly performed, even if a quarter of the UCCs also provided acute missions (diagnosis and management of acute diseases). Medical staff and caregivers were very different. Nearly half of the UCCs reported an insufficient staffing and a third of them reported a lack of training. Among the most often claimed difficulty (81% of UCCs), the release of patients is noted, with an average length of stay of 36 days. From an architectural point of view and even if the amount of beds was by the book (in average: 11), 58% of the UCCs proposed only single rooms. The lack of homogeneity shown with this survey tells us to share more our practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".