MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971141607 · doi:10.1080/09540260701369298

Mass violence and mental health – A view from forensic psychiatry

2007· review· en· W1971141607 on OpenAlexaff
Julio Arboleda‐Flórez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismIntimidationMental healthPopulationCriminologyPsychologyPsychiatryComputer securityPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologyLawEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this paper are to develop insights into the mind of the terrorist, to conduct a review of health impacts on the health of populations, especially from the point of view of mental health impacts caused by terrorist attacks and to discern the role to be played by forensic psychiatry in emergencies caused by terrorist actions. These objectives are developed at the population level and at the individual level from the point of view of a description of the terrorist and of victim's need for forensic intervention and representation. On entrance, the paper starts with a general frame of definitions and a historical overview of terrorism as an ancient, purposeful, political tool used to change a situation objectionable to the terrorist group via intimidation of a captive population. People are used as expendable pawns and become psychologically captive to the aims of the terrorist group. As well, the paper reviews the new reality of bioterrorism and the use of improved technologies to inflict expensive damage to national infrastructures and massive loss of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.428 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207