MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972650371 · doi:10.1108/14636646200200019

From discharge to follow‐up: a small‐scale study of medium secure provision in the independent sector

2002· article· en· W1972650371 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Castro, Tracey Cockerton, Simon Birke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Forensic Practice · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsDeer Lodge Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScale (ratio)Hospital dischargeDischarge planningSocial contactPsychologyPsychiatryGerontologyNursingIntensive care medicineDevelopmental psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Established following the Reed Report (1991) recommendations, Redford Lodge is an independent psychiatric hospital offering medium secure provision for mentally ill patients and offenders. For this study social and behavioural data were collected on admission and discharge for the 166 patients admitted over the three years 1995‐1998 and 49 discharged patients were reassessed at six‐month follow‐up. Predictors of length of stay, discharge and success at follow‐up were examined in relation to social and demographic factors and engagement in therapy programmes.Patients' socio‐demographic variables were not significantly related to their length of stay, place of discharge or success at follow‐up. One predictor of progress after discharge was employment. Contact with family was identified as a significant factor associated with shorter stay and positive place of discharge but not associated with success at follow‐up. Engagement in psychological therapies and/or group activities was directly related to length of stay, general progress and improvement in mental state but not to subsequent involvement in community services or general success in independent living at follow‐up.Although the findings suggest treatment is successful, further research is needed to identify specific treatment variables that have a positive long‐term effect.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Forensic PracticeSame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207