An innovative framework for psychosocial assessment in complex mental capacity evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes an innovative tool developed by the Regional Capacity Assessment Team (RCAT) to assess unique psychosocial factors related to capacity evaluations. Capacity is a socio-legal construct entailing the ability to understand choices, appreciate consequences and follow through (or direct a surrogate) with chosen options. RCAT's targeted psychosocial assessment includes medico-legal factors, social history and supports, coping skills, religious/cultural factors and risk of abuse. RCAT completes the psychosocial assessment to determine whether a full capacity assessment is required (referral disposition) and to determine the impact of an adult's social functioning on their decision-making capacity (capacity determination). RCAT's psychosocial assessment protocol was developed after a comprehensive literature review of capacity assessment and incorporates recommended practices in geriatric social work and psychology. This study will synthesise the pertinent literature, discuss cultural interviewing processes significant to capacity, caregiver assessment and describe the tool itself. Suggestions for future research and appropriate implementation of this tool are provided.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".