Implementation of a Panel of Service Users for the Evaluation of Mental Health Outpatient Services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the experience of a standing panel of psychiatric outpatients over a period of five years. The procedure is used as a complementary method to assess client satisfaction regarding services provided by a Montreal psychiatric institute. During this period, 13 meetings were held, involving a total of 22 patients as active members of the panel. These sessions allowed 11 decision makers of the institute to consult the panel regarding various topics such as service organization, quality of services, and client information. In a context of internal evaluation, by giving direct and rapid access to service users' perspectives on key issues regarding service provision, the panel appeared to be a practical procedure for use in complement with other satisfaction assessment methods. Unplanned effects included the recruitment of participants as patient representatives on different hospital committees and associations, and as presenters in conferences and congresses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it